Oral
Answers to
Questions

Cabinet Office

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Small and Medium-sized Businesses: Government Contracts

Jamie Hamilton Wallis: What plans he has to support small and medium-sized businesses in bidding for Government contracts.

Angela Joy Richardson: What plans he has to support small and medium-sized businesses in bidding for Government contracts.

Saqib Bhatti: What plans he has to support small and medium-sized businesses in bidding for Government contracts.

Greg Smith: What plans he has to support small and medium-sized businesses in bidding for Government contracts.

Penny Mordaunt: We have introduced measures to tackle barriers faced by SMEs in the procurement process. In the last financial year, we spent almost £2 billion more with SMEs than we did in the preceding year.

Jamie Hamilton Wallis: In my constituency of Bridgend in south Wales, the SME market will be absolutely key to making a success of Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the devolved Administrations, so that all parts of the UK will see progress when it comes to SMEs accessing Government contracts?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend  on all the work that he has been doing to open up opportunities for his constituents, and particularly SMEs and entrepreneurs. I can commit to, and have already had, conversations with the devolved nations. The contract finder that the Department has set up, offering greater transparency about those opportunities, is just one way that we are assisting, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss other ways that we can support his efforts to ensure that all his constituents have maximum opportunity.

Angela Joy Richardson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her previous answer and it is great to see her on the Front Bench. Ninety-nine per cent. of businesses registered in Guildford are SMEs. What steps is the Minister taking to simplify the bureaucracy involved and minimise the cost to SMEs of quoting for Government business?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing for all the businesses in Guildford. We have committed to removing barriers to small businesses in our commercial arrangements, and have already removed the complex pre-qualification questionnaires that people used to have to fill out for even low-value contracts. We will continue to look at other ways that we can ensure that SMEs have maximum opportunity to bid for work.

Saqib Bhatti: I welcome the Minister’s comments. Does she recognise the role that business support organisations play—such as the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and local enterprise partnerships, which lead on the growth hubs—in helping to bridge the knowledge gap for SMEs that have to deal with such difficult processes?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to pay tribute to those business organisations, and it is great to see him in this place, with all his expertise in this area. Those organisations play a critical role, and we must listen to what they are saying and look at ways to increase the opportunities for all their members. We want to improve our communications and relationships with those organisations.

Greg Smith: Small businesses often tell me that late payments are a significant concern when bidding for not just Government contracts, but all contracts with large companies. What steps can my right hon. Friend outline to ensure that there is a level playing field for small businesses applying for Government contracts?

Penny Mordaunt: We want SMEs to have confidence that they can bid for work. The prompt payment measure, which was introduced last September, has been a key part of the Government’s work to focus on breaking down those barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. Suppliers that do not comply with that will be struck off, and we have done that. There is more that we are looking at; my hon. Friend will know that there is debate about channelling some of the fines for those with poor practice into compensation for small enterprises.

Bill Esterson: All the friendly questions from the Whips Office do not hide the reality, which is that the Government have had 10 years to get this right. More small businesses than ever have given up trying to win Government contracts, and I am afraid that the figures do not stack up; they are worse now than when the Government came in. When will they stop giving the lion’s share of lucrative Government contracts to the Carillions of this world and start treating our excellent small businesses fairly?

Penny Mordaunt: I notice that there were no facts in that question. If the hon. Member looks at the facts, he will see that a greater and growing number of small and  medium-sized enterprises are registering to become suppliers. He will see that 12 Departments in particular are massively increasing the amount of work that they are doing with small enterprises. Rather than criticising my Government colleagues, he might like to start standing up for small businesses in his constituency.

John Spellar: I think there is unanimity across the House about the need to improve access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises, but I would prefer it if they were British small and medium-sized enterprises. What action will the Secretary of State take to amend Government procurement regulations so that Departments can start to prioritise British firms, British products and employment of British workers?

Penny Mordaunt: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He knows this Administration are focused on increasing opportunities across every part of this country. Now that we have left the EU, we will have new opportunities as we design the future procurement rules. I hope that both sides of the House can come together behind that work, so that we have maximum opportunity for every part of the UK.

Jim Shannon: Can the Minister confirm that post Brexit, contracts’ scoring metrics will be able to add weight for local builders, so that we can keep the money in the local economy?

Penny Mordaunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering what reforms we can bring in. We have set out clearly the principle that this is not just about the immediate return on investment; it is about the long-term opportunities that procurement would open up for every part of the UK.

Voter Identification: Voting Fraud

David Davis: Whether his Department has made an assessment of the extent to which the use of voter identification will tackle voter fraud.

Chloe Smith: The Government are committed to introducing voter ID, as well as extra postal and proxy voting measures, to reduce the potential for electoral fraud in order to give the public greater confidence that our elections are secure. Evaluation by the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office of the pilots we ran shows that they were a success, and that public confidence in the electoral system was higher in the areas involved.

David Davis: The Minister will be unsurprised to hear that I am unimpressed by this illiberal idea. The Electoral Commission says that fraud relating to proxy voting, postal voting, bribery, undue influence or tampering with ballot papers, on which voter ID will have no effect, accounts for three quarters of electoral fraud, so what are we doing about that?

Chloe Smith: As I mentioned, we are looking at a range of measures, including ways to improve the security of postal and proxy voting. It is important to recognise that electoral fraud in any form is a crime, which is why  we should stand by measures to deal with it. We should be on the side of the victims of that crime, whose voices are taken away—indeed, stolen—by such fraud. That is a good reason why this was in our manifesto, on which, I gently remind my right hon. Friend, we both stood.

Chris Matheson: Of course those citizens whose voices are taken away because they do not have photographic ID are also victims. As the Minister is concerned about fraudulent votes, can she tell the House how many fraudulent votes were prevented in each of the pilot areas?

Chloe Smith: As I have already said, evaluations of the pilots set out a range of data. The hon. Gentleman’s question is not the sort that can easily be answered, as I hope the more cerebral Members of the House will understand. That is because it is hard to put a figure on crime that is deterred. The question Labour Front Benchers really have to answer is: in the dying days of this Labour Front-Bench team, whose side is Labour on, given that the Leader of the Opposition employed a convicted electoral fraudster in his office?

William Wragg: May I say what a pleasure it is to see such a well stocked Treasury Bench for Cabinet Office questions, and how much I am looking forward to working with these Ministers? I am sure the feeling is mutual. In the excellent Conservative manifesto, the Government said they would set up a constitution, democracy and rights commission to address these matters. Will my hon. Friend expand on the scope, remit and timing of that commission?

Chloe Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post as the new Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs. I look forward to working with him, as do all the members of the team here this morning. The commission will examine broader aspects of the constitution in more depth and make proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. Full details will be announced in due course. Careful consideration is required, and I am confident that there will be high-quality discussion of the proposals with the Select Committee.

European Union: Future Relationship

Matthew Pennycook: What recent progress the Government have made on negotiating the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

Michael Gove: Now that we have honoured the wishes of the British people and got Brexit done, we will publish later today detailed aspects of our future relationship with the European Union, and I shall be making a statement after these questions. Formal negotiations will begin next week.

Matthew Pennycook: When it comes to the negotiations that will begin next week, no one knows what the Government’s bottom line is, and we will not find out until later this year, but will the Minister explain to the House today why on earth the Government believe that the reputational damage that will be inflicted, not just  in EU capitals but around the world, by our casual reneging on a number of commitments set out in the political declaration, which was signed in good faith with the EU after the recent general election, is a price worth paying?

Michael Gove: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that his question is wholly misconceived. We have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than honouring the withdrawal agreement, honouring the protocol that we have signed, and making sure that we achieve the political declaration’s aim of ensuring that we have a comprehensive free trade agreement with no tariffs, no quotas and no quantitative restrictions.

Desmond Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend think the EU has spotted that we have actually left and no longer need to negotiate our terms of release?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. There are a range of views—a spectrum of opinions—in European capitals, but I think that the pennies, the pfennigs and the centimes are dropping  as a result of the Prime Minister’s speeches and the lecture given recently by the Prime Minister’s sherpa David Frost.

Veterans: Employment

Chris Elmore: What plans the Government have to improve veterans’ employment prospects.

Darren George Henry: What steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is taking to support veterans to gain employment in the public sector.

Johnny Mercer: Veterans offer a vast range of skills and talent to employers, and we want to see more of them working throughout the economy. We are making it easier for them to join the civil service, introducing a national insurance break for their employers, and investing £5 million in Jobcentre Plus armed forces champions.

Chris Elmore: It is concerning that 18% of UK businesses surveyed said that they would be unlikely to take on former armed forces personnel because of negative perceptions of those who had served in the forces. Both the Minister and I know that the armed forces actually provide skills for life that can be brought into different sectors. I warmly welcome the decision by the Cabinet Office to guarantee interviews to former armed forces personnel if they meet essential criteria, which is already being done in my Bridgend County Borough Council area. What more can the Minister do—including making representations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—to ensure that the scheme is implemented across Government?

Johnny Mercer: The whole concept of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is about making experience of being a veteran equal across the country. We are introducing the scheme that the hon. Member mentions later in the year, and we are also introducing legislation to ensure that the armed forces covenant is implemented correctly  throughout the country, so that no veteran suffers disadvantage because of his or her service. The Prime Minister has shifted the dial in respect of what it means to be an armed forces veteran in this country, and I am determined to make this the best place on earth in which to be one.

Darren George Henry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ex-service personnel already working in the civil service bring invaluable skills and experience learned from the armed forces, and that guaranteeing veterans interviews for civil service jobs will boost the employment prospects of residents of Broxtowe and improve the civil service?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and thank him for his question. It is clear that in this country we are moving away from the idea that we should give veterans a job just to keep them busy, and are recognising the incredible skills and attributes that they bring to any job in society following 10 or 15 years of what has been pretty hard combat over the last few years. I pay tribute to those in the civil service, and to those who lead the way so that others can come through behind them.

Stephanie Peacock: Let me begin by saying that, with permission, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and I will be leaving this Question Time early to take part in an armed forces parliamentary scheme visit. I am sure the House will understand that no discourtesy is intended.
The Forces in Mind Trust reports that veterans experience a postcode lottery when looking for work, and fewer than half of those in the north say that it was easy to find employment. Is the Minister assured that support for veterans is being sent to where it is needed most in order to tackle that regional inequality?

Johnny Mercer: Regional inequality is a key factor in what the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is trying to do. Today we have the latest figures from the career transition partnership, and we have more people going into work and education than ever before. In fact, people are now more likely to be in employment if they are a veteran, but we are not complacent about that in any way. There is no reason why anybody coming out of the military cannot go into a job, which is the single biggest transformative factor in improving their life chances.

Relocating Public Bodies

Peter Gibson: What plans he has to relocate public bodies out of the south-east.

Steve Double: What plans he has to relocate public bodies out of the south-east.

Amanda Milling: The Government are committed to levelling up across the UK, and relocating roles to the regions and nations  of the UK. The Places for Growth programme in the Cabinet Office is driving the necessary planning within  Departments and public bodies, and a commitment to relocating 3,000 roles within public bodies has already been secured.

Peter Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, and I welcome her to her place. Darlington remains a transport hub for our entire region, thanks to the hard work of our excellent combined authority Mayor, Ben Houchen. Teesside airport has reopened Tees Valley to the rest of the country and to international interest. Given the area’s international links and its excellent rail, road and air connections, will my right hon. Friend consider Darlington and Tees Valley as a location for public bodies?

Amanda Milling: I would like to start by paying tribute to Ben Houchen and all his excellent work as the Tees Valley Mayor, and also to my hon. Friend for highlighting the strengths of Darlington. There are already approximately 800 civil servants in Darlington, and 29,000 across the north-east. Given this strength, the north-east region will certainly benefit from the relocation of civil service roles under the Places for Growth programme.

Steve Double: I welcome the Minister to her place. Cornwall has 650 miles of the most beautiful coastline in the country and a fishing industry desperately keen to make the most of the opportunities of Brexit. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Cornwall would be a great location in which to base the Marine Management Organisation?

Amanda Milling: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making sure that Cornwall’s voice is well and truly heard. Our focus is on relocating civil service roles in public bodies across the UK, and as part of this we are ensuring that any functions that are repatriated following EU exit are established in the regions and nations of the UK. My hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that the Marine Management Organisation already has several offices in the south-west, including one in Cornwall.

Office for Veterans’ Affairs: Staff

Philip Hollobone: How many staff of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs are (a) veterans and (b) non-veterans.

Johnny Mercer: The Office for Veterans’ Affairs is staffed by civil servants, two of whom, including the director, are veterans. I myself am a veteran, and I have seen at first hand the need to support our veterans. The OVA is also setting up a veterans’ advisory board, which includes veterans and representatives from academia, business and the charity sector.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will recognise that veterans represent the very best of selfless service to our country, and no one understands veterans’ needs better than veterans themselves, so what plans does he have to increase the number of veterans, including disabled veterans, in his Department?

Johnny Mercer: People come and work in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs based purely on what they can add to the organisation. A number of veterans are working there at the moment. We are still conducting a recruitment   process for certain roles, but it is an embryonic organisation that is finding its way through Government, and I look forward to giving my hon. Friend an update in writing later in the year.

Office for Veterans’ Affairs: Mental Health Support

James Sunderland: What steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is taking to ensure that veterans can access mental health support.

Johnny Mercer: The Government are providing the best mental health support for veterans, spending £10.2 million a year on veterans’ mental health services through the transition intervention and liaison service and the complex treatment service.

James Sunderland: I thank the Minister for his answer. May I ask him how the Government are helping veterans to transition back into civilian life? Will he also tell the House about any new initiatives in the pipeline?

Johnny Mercer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to his service. Veterans’ mental health care in this country is changing fundamentally, and the nation is finally realising its inherent responsibility to those who have served. We are rolling out a comprehensive NHS treatment programme through the complex treatment service and the transition, intervention and liaison service, which is the high-intensity service. Beyond that, there will be space for every brilliant third sector organisation to contribute. I am determined that this country will have the world’s best mental health care for veterans, and I look forward to updating my hon. Friend in due course.

Martin Docherty: I am sure that the Minister will recognise that veterans’ mental health also carries on into retirement. Does he agree that it is time to exempt the war disablement pension for veterans who access it in order to improve their income, opportunities and mental health in the long term?

Johnny Mercer: Pensions are a complex area that we are constantly examining. Several schemes over the years have advantaged certain groups and disadvantaged others. I am having continual conversations to ensure that the armed forces covenant means something in this country, that those who have served have a special place in this nation’s heart, and that we look after people in the way that they deserve.

Richard Bacon: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I have an excellent idea that should be in the pipeline. The single biggest barrier to some veterans improving their mental health is getting and keeping a place to live because, disgracefully, we have some veterans who are homeless. Will my hon. Friend and the Cabinet Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions and, indeed, the Ministry of Justice, consider supporting a pilot project to turbocharge the excellent work already being done by the Community Self Build Agency in  this area?

Johnny Mercer: It will be of no surprise that I am a huge fan of the CSBA, which does incredible work in my Plymouth constituency. We must be careful about this idea of homeless veterans. In my experience of extensive studies, the situation is not quite as it is represented in the media, but one is one too many. Along with the rough sleeping initiative that is being announced today, I am determined to zero in on the issue. No veterans should be sleeping rough on this country’s streets, and we are determined to get there.

Stuart Anderson: I am aware that suicide is normally lower among veterans than among their civilian cohorts. However, I have noticed that that has changed in the past six months, as the Minister will be aware, with my old platoon commander and several other people I served with having committed suicide. What is the Minister doing to support veterans in this area?

Johnny Mercer: I thank my hon. Friend for his service. Suicide is an immensely complex area, and I work on it every single day. He is right that, traditionally, someone is less likely to take their life if they have served in the military, but we are experiencing a cluster of events, and we are working every day to understand why they are happening. I meet with the families of those who have been through this journey, and we are determined to ensure that we have done everything possible in every situation. Each one is a tragedy not only for the family and the individual, but for the military as an institution. I assure my hon. Friend that we are spending every waking moment trying to deal with this current series  of events.

EU Nationals: Voting Rights

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Whether the Government plan to grant EU nationals living in the UK the right to vote in general elections.

Chloe Smith: No, we do not intend to grant that right. The Representation of the People Act 1918 sets out which non-UK nationals resident in the UK can vote in our parliamentary elections. The right is restricted to citizens from Commonwealth countries, including Malta and Cyprus, and to those from the Republic of Ireland who meet UK residency requirements.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: We currently give Commonwealth citizens, who may have been here only one month, but there are no reciprocal rights for British citizens to vote in Commonwealth countries. Why do we not give the right to vote to EU citizens, who may have lived here for 20 years, paying tax throughout that time? Do the Government not believe in representation and taxation?

Chloe Smith: First, it is right to pay tribute to the contribution to this country that EU citizens make, have made and will continue to make in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers have set out, we welcome that contribution to the life of our nation, and we are making the settled status scheme available in order to  further it. However, as far as we are aware, no other EU member state currently allows non-nationals to vote in national elections—besides Ireland, which has a long-standing bilateral agreement with the UK—so we think our approach is reasonable.

Cat Smith: The Minister acknowledges the contribution that EU citizens have made here in Britain. Of course, during the transition, EU citizens currently have the right to vote and stand for election at local level. Many EU nationals are currently serving as local councillors up and down the country for all political parties. What commitment can she make that EU nationals who currently serve in local government as locally elected councillors will be able to complete their term of office? Can she give them any guidance on whether they will be able to seek re-election and whether the communities they serve will be able to re-elect them?

Chloe Smith: I am absolutely confident that the hon. Lady is a close reader of all parliamentary questions that are answered in this House, and she will know that we have already answered that question on the record. Those who are elected to office will be able to serve their full term, including those elected before 2020. As I say, I am repeating my answer to an earlier parliamentary questions so the House is clear that EU citizens will be able to vote and stand in the May elections.

Code of Conduct for Special Advisers

Owen Thompson: What recent assessment he has made of compliance by Government special advisers with the code of conduct for special advisers.

Chloe Smith: The code of conduct for special advisers clearly outlines the standards of behaviour and conduct required of special advisers throughout their appointment. Where it may be suspected that an individual has failed to meet those standards, agreed disciplinary processes are carried out in line with the terms of the model contract for special advisers.

Owen Thompson: The code of conduct says that special advisers must not involve themselves with controversy. After calling for weirdos, misfits and “PJ Masks”, Dominic Cummings hired someone who has promoted eugenics. How is that acceptable?

Chloe Smith: There is little to add to what the Prime Minister said on this matter yesterday, which is that those views of Mr Sabisky have no place in this Government. Mr Sabisky has left the employment of the Government, and I do not think there is more to  be said on the matter other than that they are not my views either.

Jon Trickett: Talking of Mr Sabisky, the Minister no doubt agrees with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), that his views are offensive and racist. How come such a man was employed to work in Downing Street?

Chloe Smith: I do not think there is anything to be gained by going into individual instances of employment. I assure the House once again that those views are not shared by anybody on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure we would all agree on that.

Jon Trickett: That is all waffle, isn’t it? The truth is that a right-wing extremist sat in official meetings with the Prime Minister and with defence staff—that is a fact. When the political operation in No. 10 is out of control, it is a problem for politicians and the Government Front Bench. But when the vetting system breaks down or is sidestepped, is it not a problem for national security?

Chloe Smith: Does the Labour party honestly expect me to say from this Dispatch Box that the vetting system does not work? That would be a breach of national security, and I am not going to do any such thing. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask better questions.

Peter Bone: Is not one way to solve the problem this question raises to have pre-appointment scrutiny of special advisers—or at least of senior special advisers, who, in some cases, are more powerful than Cabinet Ministers—by making candidates appear before a Select Committee before their appointment, as we do with other appointments?

Chloe Smith: As I have already said in my opening answer, the code of conduct is very clear about what is required, and the model contract likewise. The appointment procedure for special advisers is found in those documents, and the fact is that Ministers take decisions. The Prime Minister takes decisions about who is to be appointed to his team, which is as it should be—Ministers decide and advisers advise. Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s considered point on the processes that could be added, I think the current processes are adequate. Again, this was answered by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister has just been clear that Ministers and the Prime Minister decide. She will be familiar with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the code for Ministers and the code for special advisers, which states clearly in section 9 that
“all appointments of special advisers require the prior written approval of the Prime Minister”.
So did the Prime Minister give prior written approval for the appointment of Andrew Sabisky—yes or no?

Chloe Smith: That is not the right question, because Mr Sabisky was a contractor.

Infrastructure Investment: Value for Money

Felicity Buchan: What steps his Department is taking to ensure value for money in infrastructure investment.

Chris Loder: What steps his Department is taking to ensure value for money in infrastructure investment.

Rob Butler: What steps his Department is taking to ensure value for money in infrastructure investment.

Penny Mordaunt: The Government are committed to delivering value for money, including from the additional £100 billion of investment in infrastructure that we have recently announced. That means that spending will not just be narrowly focused on where it brings the highest immediate economic return; it will also be focused on where it may unlock productive potential in the future.

Felicity Buchan: In London, under the stewardship of Transport for London and the Mayor of London, Crossrail is £2.5 billion over budget and two and a half years behind schedule. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that those mistakes are not made elsewhere in the country?

Penny Mordaunt: I know that this is a frustration for my hon. Friend’s constituents. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has worked with the Department for Transport and across Government to identify and implement the key lessons to be learned from such major projects, and the IPA provides challenge that is fair and accurate, through an independent assurance review of major Government projects.

Chris Loder: Will my right hon. Friend assure me of the Government’s commitment to vital rail infrastructure funding for Dorset and the surrounding counties, given that we have a three-hourly rail frequency in our county and it takes us almost three hours to get to London?

Penny Mordaunt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his election and, as the whole House is aware, for going above and beyond the call of duty in ensuring that his constituents could use train services during the recent strikes. As I say, we are investing an additional £100 billion in infrastructure, and we are seeking to ensure that we prioritise the right projects, taking a whole-network and whole-life-value approach. His representations have been well made, and they are being listened to.

Rob Butler: Now that HS2 has been approved, how will my right hon. Friend ensure, if necessary working with Ministers from other Departments, that costs are firmly controlled, so that all taxpayers nationwide, including in my constituency, through which this line unfortunately runs, can be confident that they have received value for money?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Obviously, the DFT is leading on the delivery of HS2. The IPA will continue to work with the DFT to support the delivery of this initiative, through expert advice and challenge in independent assurance reviews. The recent review of and recommendations on HS2 are very focused on ensuring that costs are controlled and that there will be no further delays.

Import Controls: EU

Martyn Day: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on the introduction of import controls on goods from the EU from 2021.

Michael Gove: I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of  State for International Trade covering a number of issues, not the least of which is our border arrangements. Import controls are necessary to keep our borders safe and secure, and to ensure that we treat all partners equally, especially when it involves collecting the right customs, VAT and other excise duties.

Martyn Day: I am grateful to the Minister for answering this question. During the referendum, he said that we would be part of a
“free trade zone…from Iceland to the Russian border”,
with
“full access to the European market”.
However, this month he has been clear that we will lose frictionless trade, and that will introduce red tape and vast impacts on our businesses. How can businesses trust his future pronouncements? Will he clarify when he abandoned the idea of frictionless trade?

Michael Gove: The whole point of our negotiations with the European Union, now that we have left, is to ensure that we do have a comprehensive free trade agreement that will ensure there are no tariffs, quotas or quantitative restrictions. That is entirely consistent with the broader approach towards free trade, which does indeed exist from Iceland to the Russian border.

Voting at 16

Beth Winter: If he will bring forward legislative proposals to lower the voting age to 16.

Mike Amesbury: If he will bring forward legislative proposals to lower the voting age to 16.

Michael Gove: No.

Beth Winter: As the Minister will be aware, my country of Wales has, along with Scotland, already passed legislation to give young people aged 16 the vote. It is a positive move and the right thing to do; it will enable young people to engage in the political process and influence decisions that affect their lives. Surely it is time that the Minister followed our excellent lead and listened to what young people want; it is their future, after all.

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, but I am afraid it is a no.

Mike Amesbury: If it is good enough for the Welsh and the Scottish, why on earth are 16 and 17-year-olds in England and, indeed, Northern Ireland not entitled to the vote? It is a question of equality. If someone can go to war for their country and pay their taxes for the country, we should extend the franchise to them. From Peterloo to the extension of the franchise to women through the women’s suffrage movement, the north-west has a proud history of extending the franchise. Come on: do the right thing for the English, Minister, and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and, indeed, those in Northern Ireland as well.

Michael Gove: That was a brilliant question in the style of orator Henry Hunt at Peterloo, but I am afraid we have to accept that in the United Kingdom the devolved Administrations quite rightly make decisions within their competence but the UK Government have no intention of altering the franchise in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are getting on with the people’s priorities: investing in our NHS and fighting crime, improving education and levelling up the economy. Those things are more important than constitutional changes.

Government Suppliers and Subcontractors: Payment

Rob Roberts: What steps he is taking to ensure that Government suppliers and subcontractors are paid on time.

Penny Mordaunt: The Government have a commitment to pay 90% of valid and undisputed invoices from small and medium-sized enterprises within five days. Departments also have a non-executive director responsible for prompt payment, and suppliers now risk being excluded from winning large Government contracts if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment in their supply chain.

Rob Roberts: I thank the Paymaster General for that answer. Following on from her responses to my hon. Friends’ questions earlier regarding small and medium-sized businesses, the cash flow of those businesses is the most important factor in their survival, so what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that the timely payment commitment will always extend further down the chain so that small and medium-sized businesses in my Delyn constituency are able to plan ahead with confidence?

Penny Mordaunt: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances: we do take those things into account. As far as the Cabinet Office is concerned—of course, it is similar for many other Departments across Government —we are meeting the five-day payment target, and in 99% of cases all invoices are paid within 30 days.

Topical Questions

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Rosie Duffield. Not here.

Owen Thompson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: Next week, we will start negotiations with the EU on our future relationship, and I will shortly make a statement to the House on our approach. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the transition period will end at the end of this year. We are working closely with businesses and border groups on preparations for the end of the transition period, and I will be meeting representatives from our ports, freight and haulage sectors later today.
I take this opportunity to welcome to the Front Bench my strengthened and hugely talented ministerial team. I look forward to working with them to deliver on our priorities in the months ahead: overseeing the transition period, strengthening the integrity of our precious Union,  ensuring that our constitution is fit for the 21st century, and reforming our civil service and public sector in line with the people’s priorities.

Owen Thompson: The SNP Scottish Government’s groundbreaking legislation ensures that everyone who chooses to make their home in Scotland, including refugees and EU citizens, can vote. That follows up on the enabling of votes at 16, which the Government here continue to oppose. Will the Minister now look to follow the lead of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament towards a more inclusive democracy, or have this Government given up entirely on democracy?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the approach to the franchise that the Scottish Government take, but one of the most important lessons that democracy teaches us is that we must respect votes. Of course, Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom in the referendum in 2014, and I am afraid his party still refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of that referendum.

Angela Joy Richardson: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend confirm his commitment to strengthening our precious Union. Would he be happy to expand on how he would like to do that?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. The truth is that our United Kingdom is proof positive that a union of nations is stronger together, and it is important that we ensure that the benefits of our Union are spread equally. That means making sure that public sector jobs are deployed effectively in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It also means that the strength of our Exchequer is the foundation that our economy provides for human flourishing across these islands. All these things are reflective of the strength of our Union, the single most successful political union and enterprise that anyone has seen on this earth, and that is why it is so important that we fight for it from Fermanagh to Forfar and to every part of England and Wales as well.

Cat Smith: Why is the Secretary of State scared of 16 and 17-year-olds?

Michael Gove: As the father of a 16 and a 17-year-old, I can assure the hon. Lady that I am not in the least scared of them.

Claire Coutinho: I am very proud to be part of a party that is delivering on leaving the EU and that is investing billions in our health and education sectors. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps that his Department is taking on public procurement to make sure that that money is spent wisely?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. She will be aware that leaving the EU is a golden opportunity to reform our procurement rules. We must cut red tape. We must drive innovation and make it easier for small businesses to win those public sector contracts. We will  achieve that by creating a bespoke system for British businesses that also complies with our international obligations.

Pete Wishart: May I ask the Secretary of State, and explicitly him on this question, what role does Dominic Cummings have in the Cabinet Office, and will he outline his professional and personal relationship with him?

Michael Gove: The gentleman concerned is a special adviser who works for the Prime Minister. All special advisers work for the Prime Minister. I have the highest regard for the special advisers who do such a wonderful job, supporting the Government in the delivery of the people’s priorities.

Pete Wishart: Yesterday, the former Chancellor said that he had resigned because of the interference of Dominic Cummings and the working arrangements of what is the second office of state. Never before has such a senior member of the Government resigned because of the dictates of an unelected official. Is it now Mr Cummings and his weirdos and misfits who are running this Government? How many other Sabiskys are lurking around in Departments, and how does the right hon. Gentleman now fit in to the operation and mechanics of government?

Michael Gove: Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Interruption.] Forgive me. It is only a matter of time, I suspect. The broader point is that the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and No. 10 work seamlessly together to ensure that the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the last general election, to strengthen our United Kingdom, to level up our economy and to make sure that people have the opportunity to excel in every sphere are carried out with harmony, unity and energy.

David Davis: Given the ridiculous bluster and sabre rattling that we have heard from the European Commission  in the past few days, what assessment have the Government made of the damage the European Union would do to its own economy if it denied itself access to the United Kingdom market?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. It is the case that the European Union exports more in goods to the UK than we export to the EU. Were some voices—I stress that it is a minority of voices in the European Union—to prevail and were they not to progress these negotiations in the way that, I am sure, we would all want to see, there would be damage to the EU’s economy, and that is the last thing that I want to see.

Jeff Smith: Does the Government intend to legislate for the proposals in the 2018 review of parliamentary constituency boundaries, or will they conduct a new review?

Chloe Smith: We were clear in our manifesto that we are committed to equal and updated boundaries, and we will bring forward proposals in due course on how to meet that commitment.

William Wragg: In February 2019, the deputy national statistician said that, for the census to go ahead as planned in March 2021, the legislation needs to be passed this April. Does my hon. Friend agree that delays to the laying of the census order now means that it is impossible for that legislation to be passed before April, and what is being done to ensure that the census will take place in March next year?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend has clearly already got himself into the detail of the Department in the most admirable way, which is what we would expect from the new Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He is right that this legislation is pressing and that behind it sits a very large programme being delivered by the UK Statistics Authority, with which I work closely. We will bring forward the order shortly to Parliament, and I look forward to its scrutiny in this place so that we can have a successful census in 2021.

Bill Esterson: Was Andrew Sabisky recruited to work on the defence and security review that the Prime Minister announced yesterday?

Michael Gove: Mr Sabisky was dismissed before the review embarked on its work.

Richard Bacon: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not think it odd that the very people who want votes at the age of 16 changed the law so that 16-year-olds cannot buy cigarettes or go into a tanning salon, and does that not reveal just how empty their aspirations are?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend, in typically pithy fashion, draws attention to the fact that when we consider the whole question of when people reach the age of maturity, the landscape is complicated. The previous Labour Government—this was led by Ed Balls—raised the participation age in education to ensure that 17 and 18-year-olds had to be in employment, education or training. That was a welcome recognition of the need to support young people to be everything they can be at the appropriate moment. This Government are committed to ensuring that young people have the right opportunities, but it is important to acknowledge that, for example, even though young people can apply to join the armed forces at 16, they cannot be deployed in a battlefield situation until they are at least 18. It is important, when discussing 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, to appreciate the complexity of the situation and to show sensitivity.

Richard Gordon Thomson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, when it comes to Andrew Sabisky, we should call a Spad a Spad. Can he confirm whether someone appointed as  a Government political adviser, even on a contractor basis, can in any way be exempt from the Spad vetting process or the requirement for prime ministerial approval?

Michael Gove: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, pointed out earlier, there is a difference between special advisers, who are appointed by and work for the Prime Minister, and contractors, who exist in all Departments.

Desmond Swayne: Why does my right hon. Friend not prevent enterprises from bidding for Government contracts unless they can demonstrate a record of having paid their suppliers  on time?

Penny Mordaunt: Companies do have to demonstrate that, and if existing suppliers do not comply with  the targets we have set, they will be booted off the  supplier list.

Justin Madders: This morning, I did a quick Google search—other search engines are available—for “Government jobs”, which came up with dozens of Government positions described as being inside IR35. That is the worst of both worlds, because an individual would be taxed as an employee but would have no employment rights. Does the Cabinet Office agree that that is an untenable state of affairs for people working for the Government?

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises a thoughtful point. He will be aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has led a review of those rules. I think that we all agree that we want to see employees treated accurately and fairly, whichever category they fall into, and of course that the public purse is protected by taxes being brought in and made available for public services. I am happy to look at the matter in slightly more detail if he thinks there is something beyond that.

Stuart Anderson: Can my hon. Friend tell me what he is doing at the moment about the current Combat Stress situation?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to Combat Stress for the immense work it has done over many years for those who suffer with mental health challenges when they return from operations. The situation is difficult. There is no doubt that the model of healthcare for our veterans is fundamentally changing, to a realisation of the responsibility that the NHS has towards those who serve. Within that model of care, there is a role for everybody. As we undergo that transition, services are available and their uptake is being monitoring every single day.

Rosie Duffield: Apologies, Mr Speaker, for not being in my place earlier.
Since 2017, and under successive Tory Governments, civil service leaks have apparently become commonplace. Have the Government carried out an assessment of why so many civil servants now seem to believe that it is in the public interest to go behind the backs of Ministers and leak information?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. Civil servants must of course abide by the civil service code, and we deprecate the leaking of any Government information. I will reflect hard on the point behind her question.

Bernard Jenkin: I declare an interest as a vice-president of Combat Stress. May I point out that Combat Stress is facing a  crisis because the Government are withdrawing funding for the 1,200 or so veterans who use its services every year? There is now an instance of a veteran taking their own life because they were refused treatment by Combat Stress and referred back to their GP. This is a very serious situation. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that Combat Stress gets the funding it needs to deliver the care to the veterans it looks after?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his work with Combat Stress. The reality is that Combat Stress is facing challenges at this time, and not exclusively because of issues with Government contracts. These challenges are reflected across the third sector because mental health care is changing. We must always be driven by the evidence about what works when it comes to accessing and treating more and more people, as the awareness of mental health goes up. I have met Combat Stress a number of times, and I have met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. I am happy to continue meeting to find a solution to this very difficult problem, the answer to which is not always throwing money at it and hoping that it gets better.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: In response to my earlier question, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, said that no other European country grants non-citizens voting rights. I think that might have been slightly erroneous. Portugal grants Brazilians who meet a certain threshold voting rights at the national level, and there is a similar arrangement in Scandinavian countries through the Nordic Passport Union. Will the Minister think again about our out-of-place system, whereby people who may have lived here for 20-odd years, people who pay tax here and even people who may have been born here, are not able to vote here? At least, let us open the conversation.

Chloe Smith: To be clear, I said that that was the case as far as I was aware, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding two further examples to the debate. He is right that we should be aware of such examples and have that conversation, but the Government’s stance is as I set out earlier—that it is reasonable and right to focus on the voters who are currently enfranchised by the Representation of the People Acts. I think that citizenship restrictions are commonplace for participation in national elections across not only the EU but most democracies, and the weight of evidence is with the Government’s position.
We intend to take forward policy to ensure that British citizens around the world—who may have travelled far from Britain but are none the less still British citizens—can vote in elections. That is how our democracy  should be run. I look forward to speaking further with the hon. Gentleman. I understand from this morning’s Order Paper that he has joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so I look forward to further such discussions in time.

David Jones: Some Welsh companies wishing to bid for public contracts in Wales frequently find themselves unable to do so because of EU procurement requirements. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that procurement regulations will be changed post the implementation period to enable Welsh companies to bid for contracts in Wales?

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some big opportunities for us to change those procurement rules. I have already had conversations with the devolved nations, and I will visit them shortly to take forward and listen to the ideas of businesses so that we can ensure that the new rules and regimes reflect their needs.

Stephen Doughty: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might want to be very careful with the answers he gives to the House about Mr Sabisky in relation to the defence and security review—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) a moment ago—because he well knows that teams of civil servants have been working on that review for some time; it did not just start yesterday, when the Prime Minister announced it. Can he answer this question: did Mr Sabisky meet any of the officials working on the defence and security review—yes or no?

Michael Gove: I have no idea.

Jo Gideon: I welcome the veterans interview guarantee, but I have spoken to veterans in Stoke-on-Trent Central, where we have quite a number, and sometimes the issue relates to pre-employment in that they need help to prepare for being ready for an interview. Will the Minister give some idea of whether we can support them on that?

Johnny Mercer: Preparing those who have served for civilian life is a huge part of what we do. We put a  lot of money into the Career Transition Partnership. Its statistics out today show that veterans have an  86% employment rate, and that continues to rise year on year. They have a higher employment rate than the civilian cohort. We are not resting on our laurels. We will continue to do all we can in the “pre” phase before individuals leave service to make sure that they have the best possible opportunity to make the most of their skills when they rejoin civilian life.

European Union: Future Relationship

Michael Gove: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s approach to our future relationship with the European Union.
Now that Britain has left the EU, we are entering a new chapter in the history of these islands. This Government have honoured the clearly expressed wish of the British people. Their instruction to us, their servants, to secure our departure from the EU has been followed. The votes of 17.4 million people—more than have ever voted for any democratic proposition in our history—were implemented on 31 January and we are now on a new journey. As a sovereign, self-governing, independent nation, we will have the freedom to frame our own laws, control our own borders, lower all our taxes, set our own tariffs, determine our own trade relationships, and ensure that we follow the people’s priorities on security, the economy, and democratic accountability. Over the next nine months, we will negotiate a new relationship with our friends and partners in the EU based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We have today published the approach for these negotiations, and copies of the document, “The Future Relationship with the EU”, were made available to Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 am.
Talks with the EU on our future relationship begin next week. It is our aim to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement as well as agreement on questions such as fisheries, internal security and aviation. We are confident that those negotiations will lead to outcomes that work for both the UK and the EU, but this House, our European partners, and, above all, the British people should be in no doubt: at the end of the transition period on 31 December, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence. We want the best possible trading relationship with the  EU, but in pursuit of a deal, we will not trade away our sovereignty.
The Government’s vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU was outlined with crystal clarity by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign, and the election result comprehensively confirmed public support for our direction of travel. In his speech in the Painted Hall in Greenwich on 3 February, the Prime Minister laid out in detail how we will reach our destination. The first principle of our approach is that we wish to secure a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. We respect the EU’s sovereignty, autonomy and distinctive legal order, and we expect it to respect ours. We will not accept or agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions, including the Court of Justice. Instead, each party will respect the other’s independence and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.
The second and allied principle of our approach is that we will seek to emulate and build on the types of relationship that the EU already has with other independent sovereign states. We will use precedents already well established and well understood to ensure that both sides’ sovereignty is respected. By using already existing  precedents, we should be able to expedite agreement. We will seek functional arrangements that the EU will recognise from its many other relationships. Our proposal draws on existing EU agreements such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada, the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-South Korea free trade agreement. That approach should enable us to move swiftly towards the goal envisaged in the political declaration agreed last October, in which both sides set the aim of concluding a zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade agreement.
As well as concluding a full FTA, we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets. Our fishing waters are our sovereign resource, and we will determine other countries’ access to our resources on our terms. We also hope to conclude an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, so that we can work with the EU to protect their citizens and ours from shared threats, but we will not allow our own legal order to be compromised. By taking back full control of our borders, we can implement measures to make the British people even safer, and we can tackle terrorism and organised crime even more effectively. We also wish to conclude a number of technical agreements covering aviation and civil nuclear co-operation, which will help to ensure continuity for the UK on its new footing as an independent sovereign nation.
Securing agreement on all those questions should not, in principle, be difficult. We are, after all, only seeking relationships with the EU that it has with other nations—relationships that respect the interests and the sovereignty of both partners. It is in that light that we should view discussions about what has been termed the “level playing field”. It has been argued that EU demands in this area will make full agreement difficult, yet there is no intrinsic reason why requirements that both parties uphold desirable standards should prejudice any deal.
The United Kingdom has a proud record when it comes to environmental enhancement, workers’ rights and social protection. In a number of key areas, we either exceed EU standards or have led the way to improve standards. On workers’ rights, for example, the UK offers a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to parental leave, so that both parents can share care. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks. On environmental standards, we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major global economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
We will not dilute any existing protections. Indeed, as the Environment Bill debated yesterday demonstrates, we wish to go further and faster than the EU in improving the natural environment. We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress. That is why the UK Government seek an FTA with robust protections for the environment and labour standards, but we do not see why the test of suitability in those areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does  not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations, and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.
Some argue that we must accept EU procedures as the benchmark because of the scale of UK trade with the EU, but the volume of UK trade with the EU is no greater than the volume of US trade with the EU, and the EU was more than willing to offer zero-tariff access to the US without the application of EU procedures to US standard setting. The EU has also argued that the UK is a unique case, owing to its geographical location, but proximity is not a determining factor in any other FTA between neighbouring states with large economies. It is not a reason for us to accept EU rules and regulations. We need only look at the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement for an example of a trade agreement that does not require regulatory alignment to one side’s rules or demand a role for one side’s court. Geography is no reason to undermine democracy.
To be clear, we will not be seeking to align dynamically with EU rules on EU terms governed by EU laws and EU institutions. The British people voted to take back control, to bring power home and to have the rules governing this country made by those who are directly accountable to the people of this country, and that is what we are delivering.
The negotiations are due to begin next week, led by the Prime Minister’s sherpa, David Frost, and I would like to end by looking ahead optimistically to the coming months. There is ample time during the transition period to strike the right deal for the UK. We hope to reach a broad agreement ahead of the EU Council’s high-level summit in June, whereupon we will take stock.
We know that our proposals are measured and our approach is fair. We know what we want to achieve. We are ready to go, and this Government are committed to establishing a future relationship in ways that benefit the whole UK and strengthen the Union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole UK, and I take this opportunity to reassure colleagues that our negotiation that will be undertaken without prejudice and with full respect to the Northern Ireland protocol.
This Government will act in these negotiations on behalf of all of the territories for whose international relations the UK is responsible. In negotiating the future relationship between these territories and the EU, the UK Government will seek outcomes that support the territories’ security and economic interests, and reflect their unique characteristics. As the Prime Minister committed to do on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations, and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress.
This Government are delivering on our manifesto commitments with energy and determination. This Government got Brexit done, and we will use our recovered sovereignty to be a force for good in the world and a fairer nation at home. We want and we will always seek the best possible relationship with our friends and allies in Europe, but we will always put the welfare of the British people first. That means ensuring the British people exercise the democratic control over our destiny  for which they voted so decisively. That compact with the people is the most important deal of all, and in that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the Minister for the Cabinet Office for prior sight of his statement. He talks about having got Brexit done, but he knows that is not the case. We have taken the first step in leaving the European Union, but Brexit, as he knows, is far from done. The Government’s ambition for our new relationship with our most important trading partner is, frankly, underwhelming. They started with a commitment to securing the exact same benefits; then scaled it back to frictionless trade to protect our vital supply chains; then it was Canada-plus-plus-plus; and now it is Canada so long as that does not get in the way of ending our alignment with the standards that we have previously enjoyed.
The Minister talked about the Government’s mandate in the general election, which was based on a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that says the free trade agreement will be
“underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field”.
They now apparently reject that. The Minister spoke of higher UK standards than are required within the EU, and he is right—there are some examples; there are also contrary examples—but EU standards are a floor, not a ceiling. May I ask the Minister: if the Government have no intention of falling below those standards, why are they unwilling to make that commitment?
I spent Monday evening with manufacturing companies from across the north of England, and they are not worried by alignment; indeed, they want it. They are concerned about the barriers to trade undermining their position in the crucial European market. I know that the Prime Minister has made his contempt for the views of business well known, but will the Government not think again at this crucial moment, because they are taking serious risks with our economy, people’s jobs and their livelihoods?
The Treasury analysis from November 2018 predicted that a Canada-style FTA would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%. I know the Government have rubbished their own analysis already, but what new analysis have they done? May I ask the Minister: will the Government publish a full economic impact assessment of the deal that they are seeking? Will they also publish the assessment of the other trade deals that he mentioned? A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Department for International Trade has commissioned and received, but not yet published, assessments of the impact on the UK economy of the FTA with the US, of that with Japan and of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Will he commit to publishing those impact assessments immediately?
The Prime Minister has told us time and again that his Brexit deal
“represents stability and certainty for business.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]
But in ruling out extending the transition period, the Government are taking business from one set of uncertainties to a new set. They are expecting to complete enormously complex negotiations in just 10 months, with a cavalier disregard for the consequences of failing to do so. The Minister’s warning to business that customs   checks are “inevitable” and that “almost everybody” will face extra barriers at the border is deeply concerning. Indeed, the one place where the Government claim that there will not be checks—for GB trade with Northern Ireland—is the only place where they have actually so far committed to having them: down the Irish sea. In light of the conflicting statements from so many of his colleagues, will the Minister clarify the extent of checks along the border that the Government have created down the Irish sea?
Labour wants the best deal for Britain in trade, security and all the other areas mentioned by the Minister. That means maintaining the closest possible relationship with our most important trading partner, and it is on that that we will hold the Government to account.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the constructive way in which he approaches these matters. This Government are wholly committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement, to respecting and enacting the Northern Ireland protocol, and to giving effect to the political declaration and its aim of securing a comprehensive free trade agreement without tariffs, quotas or quantitative restrictions. He asked specifically about the maintenance of standards, and the requirement that we follow EU law and ECJ judgments in order to secure workers’ rights and environmental protections. We do not believe that is necessary, and the EU does not require submission to its legal order from any other sovereign independent state. Ultimately, the best guarantor of environmental protections and workers’ rights is a sovereign UK Parliament that is determined to lead in the world, just as this Government are doing in those areas.
It is vital to ensure that our manufacturing sector, like all sectors of our economy, is equipped to take advantage of new economic opportunities. That is what the Government are doing, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more about how we can supercharge every part of our economy when he delivers the Budget statement on 11 March. The free trade agreement that we seek should ensure tariff-free access to markets, and provisions on rules of origin that will allow the manufacturing sector to flourish in the future.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the need to ensure that negotiations are concluded by the end of the transition period on 31 December necessarily means that they will have to proceed at pace. They will, but as I pointed out, and as he acknowledges, because we are seeking relationships for which there is already a precedent between the EU and other countries—precedents such as those between the EU and Canada, Japan, South Korea and others—it should be possible to make rapid progress. I note that my good friend, Dr Martin Selmayr—he is now the EU’s permanent representative to Austria, and he previously worked for the President of the Commission—has said that it would be entirely possible to conclude those negotiations in a timely fashion, and not for the last time, Dr Selmayr and I are in complete agreement on that.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about customs checks and a border down the Irish sea. There will be no border down the Irish sea, and we will ensure that there is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s sincere beliefs and his commitment to appropriate scrutiny, but the problem for the Labour party more broadly is that its approach to Europe would mean that we would have no control over our fishing borders, no effective control over our borders, and no way of charting our own independent economic destiny. Looking at that proposal, I am afraid all I can say, as someone once said, is, “No, no, no.”

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am expecting to run this statement until 11.30 am.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his clear statement, and on his view that since the standards we set are higher than those in the EU, he will therefore not be demanding that the EU aligns with our standards as we go forward. That is refreshing. The settlement on Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement included provision on state aid, and since then, the EU has interpreted that as bringing the whole UK under state aid provisions. Will he confirm that in any future agreement with the EU, we will not accept that the UK leaves itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice when it comes to state aid provision?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we must respect the integrity of that protocol, but it is not the case that the CJEU should be governing the application of state aid in the way that some have envisaged, which would be quite wrong.

Pete Wishart: What a load of bunkum, baloney and codswallop! This is nothing other than a route map to the cherished no deal, which is the real ambition of the Brexit zealots on the Conservative Benches. They are, even now, prepared to break international law to achieve that outcome.
Let us dispense with the unicornism and see if we can start to make sense of the real world and what we are actually dealing with. The EU expects nothing other than the political declaration to be implemented in full. It expects that level playing field to be realised and it will not accept anything else. How many times do the Government need to be told that the UK will not leave with a better deal and arrangement than that which is currently enjoyed? It does not matter if it is Canada-plus. It does not matter if it is Australia. It does not even matter if it is outer space-minus-minus-minus. The Government will have an inferior product at the end of the day when we finally get an agreement with the EU. Look at who we are up against: it is the clown-shoe UK up against the efficient, effective EU, with its negotiating experience—[Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing, sitting there with their proposals which mean absolutely nothing. They will be trounced by the EU in the negotiating process. Their hard Brexit will do nothing but hurt my nation. Even with one of these free trade agreements, our GDP will be hit by 6.1%. If they get their cherished no deal, the consequences will be absolutely catastrophic for my nation of Scotland.
Scotland wanted nothing whatever to do with this ruinous Brexit and we will not accept it. I am sure the hon. Gentlemen who have been laughing and scoffing have seen the opinion polls in Scotland. There is now  sustained majority support for independence for Scotland. One of the things driving that is all of them saying no to Scotland and pursuing their hard Brexit. Scotland is not going to be a part of this, Secretary of State. We will not accept it. When will you allow us to have a referendum, so we can get out of this mad Brexit?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. First, may I use this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to Mike Russell MSP from the Scottish Government for the work he  has done, along with leaders from other devolved Administrations, in helping to shape our approach?
Of course, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government will in some areas take a different view from the UK Government, but it is undoubtedly the case that our negotiating position is enhanced as a result of the conversations we have with our colleagues in the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Indeed, a number of changes have been made to our approach and to this document, following conversations I have had with the Scottish Government over the course of the past week.
It is also the case, however, that Scotland, like every part of the United Kingdom, will benefit hugely not just from our departure from the European Union but from the new trading relationships we will develop with other countries. It is the case, for example, that when we conclude a new free trade agreement with the United States, Scotland will be one of the sectors that benefits most from the new trading opportunities. It will also be the case, as the Scottish Government have themselves pointed out, that tens of thousands of new jobs will be created in north-east Scotland in the fishing sector as a direct result of our departure from the European Union—jobs that would not be created if we followed the SNP approach of staying in the common fisheries policy.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to the prosperity and security of the people of Scotland is the reckless approach the Scottish Government take towards the 2014 referendum and their determination to overturn the settled will of the Scottish people to stay in the United Kingdom. Their approach, I am afraid, would mean that we would have border posts at Berwick and they would not be able to use the pound sterling in Stirling. We must give that madness a miss.

Greg Smith: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that those who continue to peddle the line that we somehow need to tether ourselves to the EU’s rules and standards are in fact making a case to hold Britain back?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Wayne David: Is the Secretary of State aware that 60% of international exports from Wales go to the European Union? The Welsh Government have said that there must be a level playing field and frictionless trade with the EU in the interests of the Welsh economy. Is he aware of that?

Michael Gove: I am very well aware of the views of the Welsh Assembly Government, thanks to the excellent work done by Jeremy Miles AM, the Brexit Minister  and Counsel General. I enjoy the conversations I have with Jeremy, Mark Drakeford and others to ensure we can work together.

John Stevenson: I appreciate that negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU is a priority, but will the Minister confirm that we will also look to reach free trade agreements with other countries, that such negotiations are either under way or will be shortly, and that we have the civil service capacity to reach them?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Yes, we do—the Department for International Trade has a team of trade negotiators, lawyers and other policy experts. There have already been a number of informal and formal contacts with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other participants in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will proceed at pace with negotiations with partners across the globe to forge free trade agreements in the interests of every part of the United Kingdom.

Rupa Huq: Brexit is clearly far from done. It had cost us £130 billion by January and the average UK household is £900 worse off. Will the Minister tell us what he estimates the price tag will be at the end of this year, and, given the gendered impact of trade, where is the equality impact assessment that the Government have a statutory duty to provide?

Michael Gove: Looking at most of the indices of economic performance, such as the measures of increased investment and increased capital expenditure recently, it is the case that the United Kingdom economy, following the Conservative victory in the general election on 12 December, is powering ahead—indeed, powering ahead by comparison with EU nations. I would like to make sure that we get a comprehensive free trade agreement so that other EU nations can benefit from the dynamism of the UK economy and that men and women across Europe can benefit from the right economic relationship.

Felicity Buchan: Financial services are critical to this country’s economy, contributing 11% of our total tax take. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who work in financial services that their interests will be protected during free trade negotiations?

Michael Gove: Absolutely—financial services matter not just in the City of London, but in Edinburgh, Perth, Leeds and across the United Kingdom. It is a dynamic and growing sector and it is important that we make sure we have the right arrangements for them. We hope that the EU will report by June on the prospects for equivalency in financial services. That commitment was made in the political declaration. It did not subsequently appear in the EU’s negotiating mandate, but I am confident that by June the EU will have completed those equivalency assessments.

Kevin Brennan: In our future relationship, it is important that musicians, performers and so on can move freely and continue to go to Europe, and that European performers can come here on a reciprocal basis. What is the Minister’s understanding of the Government’s position on that?

Michael Gove: The hon. Member makes an important point. He will see that in this document there are details on how we can ensure that those who provide professional services, including artists and musicians, can continue to do so at the end of the transition period. It is critically important that the cultural excellence that so many UK musicians are responsible for continues to be available to European nations. Whether it is the Bayreuth festival or pop concerts in Belgium, we need to make sure that British talent has a chance to shine.

Rob Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an agreement on a future relationship by the end of the year is perfectly feasible, and that the EU and its negotiators need to recognise the reality of a sovereign, independent United Kingdom with a strong, dynamic economy?

Michael Gove: Yes, that is absolutely right. As I mentioned, a number of EU leaders have said that a deal is doable because we are operating on the basis of precedent, and it should then be possible to conclude all the necessary agreements. Having concluded these agreements by the end of this year, we can then move on to deepening the many bilateral and multilateral relationships that we have with our friends and partners in Europe to the benefit of all.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman referred to other deals that he is hoping to emulate. He will be aware that the EU’s deal with South Korea took eight years from the start of negotiations to implementation and that the Canada deal took seven. Given that the Government are seeking a much more comprehensive arrangement than either of those, his optimism that it can be done and ratified in 10 months remains to be proven, but will he confirm that if it is not possible to conclude a deal, we will exit the transition period on 31 December with no agreement whatsoever?

Michael Gove: We already have an agreement—a withdrawal agreement that safeguards the rights of UK and EU citizens, settles our financial obligations and makes provision through the protocol for Northern Ireland’s position. As for the free trade agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, it is more difficult to begin when one is designing a prototype; now that the prototypes exist and have become precedents, it is much easier to replicate their provisions.

David Jones: Further to the previous question, some two years ago I attended a presentation, complete with slides, given by Mr Michel Barnier, at which he indicated that, as things then stood, the only post-Brexit trading arrangements available to the UK were those enjoyed by South Korea and Canada, which is precisely the arrangement that the Government are seeking. Since then, the EU seems to have resiled from that position. Does my right hon. Friend know why the EU is apparently showing such bad faith?

Michael Gove: As my right hon. Friend knows, having served with distinction in government, there is a range of views across the European Union, but the EU mandate has now been concluded, with unanimity, and we are confident that we can negotiate using our approach and that mandate to reach an appropriate deal, similar to the one that he has outlined.

Jamie Stone: I have often referred in this place to the concerns of the highland tourism industry, in particular hotels, about the continuing employment of EU nationals, many of whom are heading homeward, and the concerns of fish processors about getting their fresh produce to European markets in good time. Will the Secretary of State, who is a good Scot, consider coming to the highlands to meet representatives of those industries? He would be most welcome.

Michael Gove: I would be delighted so to do. Any opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a welcome one. He is absolutely right that the hospitality industry is integral to the success of the highlands economy. We want to make sure that in the future those who provide such a high standard of hospitality have access to the skilled labour they need.

Steve Double: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his clear message on fisheries. He will know that memories run deep in our fishing communities, and that great concern continues to be felt because of the way the fishing industry was treated previously. Will he make it absolutely to clear to fishermen in Cornwall and around the country that access to our fishing waters will not be used as a bargaining chip to be traded off against  other priorities?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: memories of what happened in the 1970s certainly do run deep, and for very good reason. That is why I sought to stress that we, as an independent sovereign state, regard control of our own resources as something we cannot barter away. Of course we want to co-operate in the management of stocks with our neighbours, but the approach we take will be similar to that of other sovereign states or regimes such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. As an independent coastal state, we will regulate access to our own waters on our terms.

George Howarth: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to trying to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement, but does he accept that many of my constituents who work in the automotive industry are seriously worried about the impact of a potential 10% tariff on motor vehicles? Will he give a firm commitment to making sure that their interests are as protected as possible?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Throughout his time in the House, he has been a strong, consistent and powerful voice for the rights of workers. He is absolutely right that those who work in our automotive sector deserve the best possible future, and it is for that reason that we will seek to avoid any tariffs on cars or automotive products.

Jerome Mayhew: British farmers are proud to produce food to the highest standards, and the British consumer benefits from that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers and consumers of my constituency that those high standards will be maintained in any free trade agreement?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. The Agriculture Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) during her outstanding tenure as Environment Secretary and which is being carried forward by her successor, will ensure that farmers have a firm foundation on which to plan for the future. In all our trading relationships, we will make sure that there are appropriate protections for the environment and for animal welfare, to ensure that the peerless standards set by our farmers are used as a badge of excellence to enable them to do even better in the future.

Jim Shannon: Can the Secretary of State confirm that fishing fleets and fish processors in Portavogie in my constituency, Ardglass, Kilkeel and elsewhere will have the same rights as their fellow fleets and processors in Scotland, Wales and England, and that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged by the border down the Irish sea?

Michael Gove: There will be no border down the Irish sea, and the fishing fleets of Northern Ireland will enjoy all the rights that they deserve, similar—indeed, identical—to those of other fishermen, and fishers, throughout the United Kingdom.

Stephen Crabb: Striking a deal is far easier and far more likely from a position of strength. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to what happened in 2017, going into these negotiations with clarity and unity, backed up by a strong electoral mandate, should give us all reasons for optimism, not pessimism?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, given a 52-48 referendum result and 650 different views in the House, not everyone will be satisfied with every aspect of our negotiating approach; but with a united Government, a clear approach and a general election mandate, and given that this document is underpinned by clear work by lawyers, trade negotiators and others, I believe that we can secure a deal, and I am sure Members throughout the House recognise that we should not make our own personal perfect the enemy of the common good.

Pat McFadden: The Minister’s statement and the document published today show that the Government have made a fundamental choice, which is to prioritise sovereignty over any economic argument or consequence for either goods or services. Is there not a danger, however, that having made that choice, the Government will impose long-term economic consequences on the country in pursuit of the prize of a sovereignty that they will end up not using very much, because at the end of the day good standards in the environmental, labour market and consumer sectors actually make sense?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman always makes thoughtful contributions to our debates, and I take his point. It will be for this Parliament and future Parliaments to decide how our sovereignty is exercised in accordance with the wish of the British people, but the experience of history tells us that the countries with the maximum amount of control over their own destinies  are the best equipped to succeed economically and, indeed, to secure a greater degree of equity for all their citizens.

Greg Clark: Does my  right hon. Friend recognise the distinction between EU regulations and European technical standards? The latter are set outside the EU, and without a loss of sovereignty, by expert bodies of which the British Standards Institution is one of the most respected and admired in the world. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that British standards expertise will continue to be able to influence European and international standards?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, which reflects the brilliant work that he did as Business Secretary. It is absolutely the case that there are common technical standards in which British experts play a distinguished part. We will want to ensure—and I know that others will want to ensure—that those common standards can help to underpin successful commerce and trade.

Jonathan Reynolds: The Minister began by saying that the Government were not asking for anything that was not already in an existing agreement between the EU and another country, but then gave an answer on financial services which the document backs up, saying that the Government were seeking an enhanced, comprehensive equivalence regime for our major sector. I must respectfully say to him that those statements cannot both be true. There is no single equivalence regime—it is a patchwork of regulations—and there are major bits of legislation that contain no equivalence provisions at all, such as cross-border payments regulation, the motor insurance distribution directive and the single euro payments area. So, with respect, we are asking for something additional, and one of the answers that the Minister has given is not really correct.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention, but all that we are seeking is straightforward equivalence in financial services. The European Union has said that it will review that, and we will know the conclusions of its review by June.

Peter Bone: What an excellent statement the Minister made, outlining our principles, but can he assure me that the principles will not change when the EU says no to something? Over the last few years I have listened to excellent speeches from that Dispatch Box, only to find that our principles change when the EU says no.

Michael Gove: I am a restless seeker after consensus wherever it can be found, but, more important than that, I am a democrat. The British people made it clear in the referendum and again in the general election that they wanted us to leave the European Union, and the Prime Minister made it clear in the general election, as he did during the referendum campaign, that that meant leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will not move from those principles.

Jonathan Edwards: Regrettably, the British Government, through this statement, have decided to take a belligerent approach   to the second phase of Brexit negotiations. Their opening move is to try to reopen the agreement reached after the first phase of Brexit, and to set further arbitrary deadlines for the infinitely more complicated second phase of Brexit dealing with trade. Rather than playing Russian roulette with people’s jobs and economic wellbeing, would it not be better for the Government to take a grown-up approach to these negotiations and remove any arbitrary deadlines for the conclusions of the negotiations?

Michael Gove: There are no arbitrary deadlines. The deadline of 31 December for agreement is in the political declaration. If we were to take that out, we would be altering the political declaration. However, we are honouring the political declaration, and far from being belligerent, all we are doing is simply setting a deadline. When I was an editor in the world of newspapers, setting a deadline for correspondents was not an exercise in belligerence; it was a way of making sure that we could serve the people.

Laura Trott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have higher standards than the EU in a number of areas, particularly in maternity, and that it might be useful for the EU to recognise that in some of its discourse?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely bang on. Across the nations and countries of the continent of Europe, there are different approaches to some of these questions. There are also countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, that have exemplary standards in environmental protection, as well as in maternity and social rights. The UK, like Norway, is a progressive, liberal, modern country, and that is something that we should celebrate across the House. Outside the European Union, we can aim even higher.

Geraint Davies: The Minister knows that Canada, South Korea and Japan are not in the single market or the customs union, so we are starting from a different position. Will he therefore accept that if we diverge from EU environmental standards and workers’ rights, there will inevitably be restrictions? Is it not really his plan to lose British jobs and simply blame the EU? Would it not be better to keep up the standards and keep up the trade, because people did not vote to lose their jobs when they voted to leave the EU?

Michael Gove: I completely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but we have had a referendum and a general election, and in both it was very clear that we were going to leave the single market and the customs union and take back control in the interests of the British people.

David Duguid: I very much welcome the statement, and the document to which my right hon. Friend refers. I particularly welcome the clarification and increased detail on the subject of fisheries, and not least the point that, as he said in his statement, “we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets.” Will he confirm to the House and to the constituents of Banff and  Buchan, particularly those in the seafood sector—the catchers and those on the processing side—that we will retain sovereignty and get the best deal for our fishermen across the United Kingdom, despite the assertions from the EU and the seemingly wishful thinking of Scottish National party Members?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For folk in Banff and Buchan, Moray and across the United Kingdom, a sea of opportunity beckons when we leave the European Union, and it is a great pity that the SNP and the Scottish Government, despite the many talented Members that they enjoy, still want us to remain in the EU and the common fisheries policy. This is one of a number of ways in which they would sell Scotland short, and it breaks my heart.

Alan Brown: This Government have today ignored the voice of Scotland in the referendum and ignored the compromise proposals from the Scottish Government. They are showing that they are willing to ride roughshod over a Sewel convention. Now the right hon. Gentleman has reneged on his offer as chair of Vote Leave for Scotland to have its own immigration policy. Which one of these aspects will strengthen his so-called precious Union?

Michael Gove: We are respecting the referendum result. In 2014, the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. This is a settled decision that, sadly, the Scottish Government seek to unpick to the detriment of all. After Scotland voted to be in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, whole and entire, voted to leave the European Union, and we are working to ensure that that democratic decision works in the interests of all.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The UK’s economy is primarily service based, and while I hear that taking back our borders means a separate treaty for fishing, which many people in coastal communities will welcome, many of my constituents are in financial services and probably represent more people than are employed by fishing in the entire UK. We have talked about taking back control of our money, so why not have a separate treaty for financial services? If not—I have heard his comments on equivalence—will he set out the Government’s position on equivalence when it comes to the derivation period?

Michael Gove: As my hon. Friend makes clear, financial services matter not just in Wimbledon, but across the United Kingdom, which is why, as stated in the document published today, we wish to conclude an agreement that will make provision for financial stability, market integrity and investor and consumer protection for financial services. We also want to secure mutual recognition  of professional qualifications to ensure that everyone  in our service sector can continue to have access to opportunities in every market in which they currently work.

Chris Elmore: May I ask the Minister for further information to the chapter on digital in the report, which refers to an
“open, secure and trustworthy online environment”
and encouraging regulatory co-operation? With the Government moving to tackle online harms on various platforms, will he set out in more detail what he means by ensuring that there is co-operation on regulation in any future trading agreement?

Michael Gove: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are compliant with the general data protection regulation that the EU introduced, and we want to ensure that we get an equivalency judgment from the EU on data adequacy, so that we can continue to ensure that data flows, which are so integral to business and others, can continue in an appropriate way.

Craig Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement for its clarity and optimism, which people of Montgomeryshire and, indeed, the majority of people in Wales will welcome. To tackle some of the scaremongering, will he meet with the Welsh farming unions to outline again that we will not seek to lower food standards? Indeed, if my hon. Friend wants a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, we can certainly do that in Montgomeryshire.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Whether it is from the Farmers’ Union of Wales, NFU Cymru or my hon. Friend, farmers in Wales have brilliant representation. There is nothing nicer than a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, apart from possibly an Ulster fry, or a bacon sandwich in Peterhead harbour.

Claire Hanna: The Minister states that the negotiation will take place without prejudice to the Northern Irish protocol. However, there is confusion in Northern Ireland. We hear from the EU that there will be no derogation from the rules, but reports over the weekend suggested that the Government seek to find ways around the protocol, yet the Minister and his colleagues say that there will still be unfettered access and no border in the Irish sea. Will the Minister please describe in detail, with the crystal clarity he referred to, how those irreconcilable aims will be married up, and how people in Northern Ireland will finally get certainty after three and a half years of bluster and stalled investment? Will he also clarify what form the negotiation with the devolved Administration will take?

Michael Gove: Far from there being confusion, I hope that there is clarity that we will implement the withdrawal agreement, respect the Northern Ireland protocol, and then conclude a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union that will work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and people across the United Kingdom. I have had profitable conversations with both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the preparation of our approach today. We will not always agree with every party in Northern Ireland, but all parties in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Lady’s, have an important role to play in ensuring that we deliver for all the people of the United Kingdom.

Sally-Ann Hart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reassurances to our fisheries. Those reassurances are particularly relevant to   the fisheries in my beautiful constituency. Does he agree that the point of leaving the EU is to enable us to make our own laws in our own way through politicians whom we elect, and who are accountable to the British people?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Democratic accountability, as outlined brilliantly and eloquently by the father of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in this House and elsewhere, is something that all of us should celebrate, and that leaving the European Union allows us to enhance.

Kate Green: The document rightly acknowledges the importance of the second-generation Schengen information system—SIS II —database, which holds millions of pieces of data on wanted or missing persons, including vulnerable children. The document also says that if by June insufficient progress has been made on ensuring the basis of an agreement by September, the Government will begin to make their own preparations for domestic priorities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how he will protect this country properly if we have to sacrifice our access to millions of pieces of vital data and rely on an Interpol database that contains only a few hundred thousand records?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We would like to continue having access not just to the Schengen information system II database, but to Prüm, ECRIS and a number of other law enforcement and criminal justice tools. Of course, we will have to see what approach the European Union takes. I am hopeful it will take a pragmatic approach, because it benefits just as much as we do, if not more, from our participation in these databases. Leaving the European Union allows us, through our controlling our own borders and laws, to improve homeland security in a number of ways, and we will always act in the interests of the British people.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK and the EU will trade together under an Australian-style agreement if an agreement cannot be reached by the end of the year?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to have a comprehensive free trade agreement on the model I outlined in my statement, but if we do not, there are other great countries, including Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the United States, that have a huge volume of trade with the EU without having an agreement of that kind.

Stephen Doughty: We cannot level up by damaging the foundations, but that is exactly what would happen to the economy if we walked away in June, as the Government have this morning been briefing that we will. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, it would also do damage to our security. The document clearly says there should be no
“role for the CJEU in resolving UK-EU disputes”.
Does that mean that the Government are happy potentially to lose access to not only databases that are crucial to our security, but the European arrest warrant?

Michael Gove: That is ultimately a question for the EU. We are clear that we want a relationship of sovereign equals. If the EU attaches to that relationship a requirement that we follow the jurisdiction of its courts, it is not a relationship of sovereign equals. The security of the EU would be impinged as well, and I am sure that no European politician would want to sacrifice the security of their people by taking anything other than a constructive approach.

Anthony Browne: Before I came to this place I had a job, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, representing the banking industry in negotiations with the EU, the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council, and in discussions with the Bank of England and the Treasury on what sort of relationship we want with the EU after Brexit. We came to realise quite quickly, as did the Bank of England—Mark Carney has spoken on this point—that, as a global financial centre, being a rule taker and having no say on our financial regulation would be a threat to the UK’s financial stability. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to be very careful, as becoming a rule taker would be a real threat to our financial services?

Michael Gove: I agree 100%. Spot on. Totally correct.

Martin Docherty: Yesterday, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I heard from Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute that
“the risks to the UK’s essential alliance relationships are greater now than they have been for many decades.”
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advise the House on why the statement on our future relationship with the European Union says absolutely nothing about maintaining and improving defence?

Michael Gove: When it comes to maintaining and improving defence, we have a network of relationships, including, of course, our membership of NATO—the strongest and most durable alliance for freedom the world has ever known. When it comes to defending this country, one of most perilous things we could do would be to follow the Scottish Government’s approach of breaking up the United Kingdom and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am afraid that the SNP’s position on defence, like its position on so many other issues, would mean the Scottish people were less safe. That is the direct result of its ideological attachment to separation.

Matthew Pennycook: In the light of the Minister’s remarks on a level playing field, can I ask him about competition policy and governance arrangements? Would the Government accept commitments on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer and social standards being subject to any dispute resolution mechanism agreed to as part of the wider agreement?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman has given a list, and I will come back to each of them in correspondence. Some will be covered by dispute resolution mechanisms, and others may not.

Steven Bonnar: Scotland cast its biggest ever vote on a proposition when it voted by 62% to remain in the EU. More people  in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than voted to remain in the United Kingdom—and that was using the UK Government’s franchise; had the Government trusted 16 and 17-year-olds in the way we trust them in Scotland, a bigger proportion of voters would have voted to remain in the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman truly believe that withholding the sovereign right of the Scottish people is a sustainable position? While protecting the sovereignty of the UK, is he prepared to deny the sovereignty of Scotland?

Michael Gove: It is the case that the Scottish nationalist party—[Hon. Members: “National!”] I am sorry, but as Robert Burns said,
“facts are chiels that winna ding”.
I am afraid that the representatives on that Bench are nationalists. They put separation—the smashing up of the United Kingdom—ahead of anything else. Some of them are decent and kind people, but they are nationalists. The reason they object so much is that when the mask comes off and we recognise the ideological heart of the SNP, they dinnae like it up ’em.

Justin Madders: It is estimated that if agreement is reached, there will be a need for about 50,000 new customs officers. Is it feasible to recruit and train that many people in less than six months, and who is going to foot the bill for it?

Michael Gove: Yes, it is, and the Government stand behind that.

Stephen Farry: Does the Minister recognise that even the most far-reaching and comprehensive free trade agreement will sadly still mean regulatory and rules of origin checks down the Irish sea. As such, beyond simply giving a rhetorical commitment on the implementation of the protocol, will he assure not just the House, but his negotiating partners in the EU, that the Government are preparing to implement that protocol?

Michael Gove: We will ensure that the protocol is appropriately implemented, and we will also ensure unfettered access for businesses in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market.

Patricia Gibson: Brexit will be extremely damaging for Scotland in a range of ways. The difference between me and the Minister is that he is a British nationalist, whereas I am a Scottish nationalist. Does he think that Brexit imposed on Scotland will increase or decrease constitutional tensions across the UK?

Michael Gove: Britain leaving the EU will mean that there is a greater degree of harmony between every part of the United Kingdom. I recognise that that will be a disappointment to the SNP in its restless search for grievance, dissension and division, but one thing I cannot help saying is that even though I profoundly disagree with the SNP, it is so lovely to have so many SNP Members here in the Westminster Parliament. I know that for many, many years to come, there will be representation for Scotland here in Westminster, and that is a lovely thing.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 2 March will include:
Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, followed by a procedural motion relating to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill, after which the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Tuesday 3 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by the Committee and remaining stages of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 and the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020.
Wednesday 4 March—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on flooding, followed by a debate on health inequalities. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 5 March—General debate on International Women’s Day.
Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 March will include:
Monday 9 March—Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill.
Wednesday 11 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 12 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 13 March—Private Members’ Bills.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I am pleased to see that the Committee of Selection has now met and that the Select Committees are on the Order Paper. Just to clarify, the situation had nothing to do with the Labour party; it was in fact the Government who were delaying it. I hope that there will be motions on the Order Paper on Monday for the House to approve.
Will the Leader of the House provide the list of ministerial responsibilities? There have been a lot of new appointments.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that any of the new recruits who come into No. 10—particularly in the light of the statement by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and the replacement of his staff—who have not been security vetted will not be given security briefings? I understand that someone who was recently removed from No. 10 had not been security vetted. These staff need to go through the proper Cabinet Office procedures.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware, but this morning the Court of Appeal gave its judgment on Heathrow airport. Will the Leader of the   House find time for a statement on Heathrow expansion? If he does not, there will probably be an urgent question, so he might as well arrange for a statement to be made.
As Cabinet Office briefing room A, Cabinet Office briefing room B and the Prime Minister’s wellingtons lie unused, the climate emergency is taking its toll on our citizens. They are watching their furniture go down the river. We had a record 632 flood alerts on one day alone. The statement on Monday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said nothing about repairing flood defences. The Labour Government increased funding by 10% a year, but under the Tories that was cut to 1.2%. The Labour Government in Wales are looking after the distressed folk by giving the affected households £500, and up to £1,000 if they do not have insurance. That is practical help. Will the Leader of the House perhaps ask the Secretary of State for Wales, who is coming to the Chamber later, about the one-off £10 million infrastructure payment that the Government of Wales require? I am sure the Leader of the House will want to provide time for an updated statement after the Prime Minister visits Shrewsbury this weekend.
No debate on the Marmot report is scheduled in Government time. Professor Marmot said that the past decade has seen those in disadvantaged areas face declining health, with life expectancy falling, especially for women. He called the damage to the nation’s health “shocking” and said:
“If health has stopped improving, that means society has stopped improving.”
The Leader of House cannot dismiss Professor Marmot because the Prime Minister himself said yesterday that he worked with him.
Professor Marmot also said that good employment is important. While the Government boast about more employment, there has been a massive increase in people on zero-hours contracts, with 1 million people—and 9% of those under 25—now on these contracts. Other countries have banned zero-hours contracts; when will the Government have a debate on the perniciousness of zero-hours contracts? For people on these contracts, it is like walking a tightrope without a safety net. That that is not fair or right. People having to resort to volunteer food banks is not a safety net.
Why have we not had a debate on the £7 million contract for private US firms so that they can screen what they are calling our most expensive patients? Will the Leader of the House rule out people being denied treatment—or are we getting into questions of the deserving and undeserving? The next step is going to be screening people out; what is the Government’s obsession with screening people out? May we have a debate on that? I hope the Select Committees will be up and running; perhaps they will be able to report to the House.
We have the absurd situation in which the Deputy Health Minister in Iran has covid-19 and British citizens are lying in jail having done nothing. Nazanin, Anousheh and Kylie need to come home. They need proper treatment. An Iranian MP has said that they should be released on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. Perhaps this is a job for the United Nations or the World Health Organisation, or perhaps even for the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who did a fantastic  job on Northern Ireland. Perhaps he can do some negotiating as the Government do not want to do that on behalf of their British citizens.
Will the Leader of the House please clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)? She asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about those who self-isolate, and urged the Government to make clear that those who do so should not be penalised in terms of their employment rights. The Secretary of State said that only those who self-isolate on medical advice will be protected. We have many people on zero-hours contracts, and they will not be protected. They are self-isolating to protect our citizens. May we have clarification that everyone, whether they get medical advice or not, will be protected and have their employment rights protected? There was a helpful email from the House authorities on covid-19 and on what Members can do. Will the Leader of House please ensure that up-to-date hand gel is available for public areas, such as the Public Gallery, and for those staff who are interfacing with the public, so that they are  also safe?
The Speaker’s Chaplain held a service for Ash Wednesday in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft with Canon Pat Browne. We are pleased to welcome Canon Patricia Hillas, who will be inaugurated next week. Finally, I wish everybody—Welsh or not—a happy St David’s Day on Sunday.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I notice that when the shadow Leader of the House gets up to stand, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) whoops in delight, which he does not do when I get up to stand, so clearly the right hon. Lady is doing something right.
I am glad to report that the Select Committees will be set up. It has taken longer than anticipated. Inevitably, a reshuffle in the midst of it meant that there were some changes as to who would be on the Committees, but that is now going ahead and the Government are very keen to get that scrutiny up and running.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for asking for the list of ministerial responsibilities, because it helps me to extract it from the place where it is kept, and that is a useful service to the House, so I appreciate that.
As regards the vetting of new recruits, I am glad to say that those are security matters on which the Government do not go into detail. They never have done whatever their colour—whether they have been red or blue, or, in the dim and distant past, even yellow. Therefore, we would not break from that precedent and tradition.
As for Heathrow Airport, the right hon. Lady is right to ask for the Government position to be made clear on this, and there will be a written ministerial statement imminently. It may even come out while I am still speaking. I cannot promise that, but it will certainly come out today.
Then there is this fascination—a sort of obsession—with committee rooms in the Cabinet Office and which ones are being used for which particular purpose. There are many rooms—it reminds me of the line in the Gospel about there being many houses. Leaving that to one side, there are many rooms that are used.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be visiting Shrewsbury today. The Government are not just one  person; they are a whole team of people. We are governed by Cabinet government in this country, and the work is being done by the people whose responsibility it is. The Government have done a great deal to protect more than 200,000 properties from flooding. That is a very important safeguard, because, for the people affected by floods, it is a terrible experience. Therefore, to have protected 200,000 homes is an achievement. Some £4 billion will be spent in this area. The Environment Agency has in its bank account, I believe, £2.7 billion of taxpayers’ funds to disburse, so work is going on and things are being done to help those affected. That includes £5,000 per household to put in flood defences, and £500 to help people immediately.
With regard to the Marmot report, the Prime Minister, who spoke about this yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, said that the discrepancy in life expectancy in this country is a disgrace. It is an effort of this Government to level up, and that includes levelling up life expectancy. It is worth noting that the Marmot report also welcomes the record level of employment that we have achieved, because the best way out of poverty is always through employment, and that is something to which the Government are committed and on which they have an incredibly good track record.
As for zero-hours contracts, they are a small portion of the total employment in this country. They provide a flexibility that is welcome to many employees and employers. None the less, it is important to bear in mind that most of the new jobs created since 2010 have been full-time jobs.
The right hon. Lady knows that I share her concern about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is a particular concern that the coronavirus has been rumoured—I emphasise rumoured and not confirmed—to be in the prison in Evin where Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held. The UK ambassador to Iran has raised the matter with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we are in contact with our international partners on this issue. The Iranian authorities have denied this at the moment, but I must confess that I, for one, would not always take as authoritative denials issued by the Iranian Government. I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this matter again. The Government are trying to do what they can in this very serious situation.
With regard to the preparedness of the House of Commons and the provision of sanitising hand gel for people meeting the public, that is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, on which both the right hon. Lady and I serve, so at our next meeting, which I think is Monday week, we will no doubt have a report on quite what the state of affairs is.

John Hayes: Given my right hon. Friend’s encyclopaedic and diligent understanding of the particular concerns of Members, he will know that I am patron of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. Those veterans are the young men and women who were sent to the south Pacific in the 1950s to witness the first nuclear tests, at great risk to them and with severe consequences subsequently. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) was Secretary of State for Defence, I took a delegation to see him and he agreed to look into having a medal for those veterans.  May we therefore have a statement on whether such a medal will be issued? Surely it is time to be generous to those who gave so much.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course we should be generous to those who have served the country. Medals do not fall within my immediate area of responsibility, but I will raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

Tommy Sheppard: The schedule that the Leader of the House has presented today takes us to a date that is precisely three months since the general election, but I have to say that I am still finding the pace of the agenda he puts before us rather sedate. I am left wondering when this Government will get into gear, and whether their proposals for radical reform are not nearly as expansive as their public relations department would have us believe.
This week both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are hosting major events on the drugs crisis afflicting every part of this Union. There is a growing awareness in this Chamber that the law needs to change in order to allow more effective interventions that can save lives. Will the Government therefore bring forward a debate on the drugs crisis in the United Kingdom so that we can look at changes to both secondary and primary legislation?
I also want to talk about the procedures for English votes for English laws and for the estimates. The Leader of the House may remember that when EVEL was introduced my party made the argument that many of the matters that are reserved to England and Wales have consequences through the Barnett formula for the funding of services in Scotland. We were told at the time that because Barnett was essentially about money rather than policy, the proper time to debate it would be when the House considers the estimates.
We have a bizarre situation coming up next week, when the House will be asked to approve hundreds of billions of pounds for public expenditure without any debate at all. I know that is because the Liaison Committee has not yet met, but that is hardly our responsibility. Will the Government therefore make arrangements to allow the House to debate the estimates, and to enable us to move amendments about the consequences they will have for public services in Scotland?
Finally, I gently say to the Leader of the House that the fact that he will not answer my question does not make it go away, so I will ask him again. When will the Government bring forward proposals to deal with the fact that they do not have a mandate north of the Scottish border? I say that in a week when another opinion poll has been published, this time asking people whether they wish to have a referendum on the question, and 55% of the Scottish public now want a referendum within the lifetime of this Parliament. When will the Government stop ignoring that and deal with it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s last point first. He makes a typical confusion. When an answer is given that is not the answer that is wanted, that does not mean that the question has not been  answered; those are two separate concepts. I refer  him to the answer I have given previously from the Dispatch Box.
With regard to the speed with which the Government have got off the starting blocks, we are the Lamborghini of Governments, or the Ferrari of Governments—I have never known nought to 60 to be achieved faster. If Members prefer, we are the Aston Martin of Governments. I was quite tempted to say that we are the Bentley of Governments, but my 1936 Bentley takes so long to get to 60 mph that that would not necessarily be the right comparison. Bear in mind that within a few weeks of the general election we had legislated to leave the European Union, and that was perhaps the most fundamental piece of legislation we could have passed.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of the drugs conference that is happening in Scotland today. We are concerned about the rate of drug deaths in Scotland, which is three times higher than the UK average, so it is quite right the conference is taking place in Scotland. There needs to be a balanced policy, involving a mix of enforcement—some dozens of people were arrested yesterday alone in a number of raids over the county lines problem—and treatment. Working out precisely where policy should go is the right thing to do, and I am sure that there will be statements and debates in this place once that is done.
As regards estimates and EVEL, I have sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are deadlines by which the estimates have to be approved, but the Government are conscious that they owe the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee time to consider these issues. That will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his party to debate the matters that they wish to bring forward.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I intend these proceedings to run until about 12.15 pm. I will try to get everybody in, but that depends on questions and answers being very short.

Steve Double: The Government have rightly committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The plan includes phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2035, which is going to mean a huge increase in demand for critical minerals such as lithium. The Leader of the House may be aware that Cornwall is rich in lithium and many other minerals used for the motor industry, so can we have a statement from the Government about their strategy on securing a supply of these critical minerals—and, where possible, a domestic supply—for the industry?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Cornwall is rich in many things, not least in its brilliant Members of Parliament. Our approach to ensuring that UK industrial consumers have continued access to the critical technology metals that they need is firmly based on free, fair and open international trade on a global level. This has served the UK well, and we have not received any signals from companies or the markets that our policy should change. We will monitor the situation closely and continue to engage with UK industry on this genuinely important matter.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for mentioning  the Marmot report, because Labour Members have all been concerned about the disparity in public health since the Black report and the Townsend report, and the Marmot report follows up on the issue. It now seems that health inequalities are getting worse in this country for the first time in decades, so can we have a full debate in Government time about what we can do to tackle those real and worsening health inequalities?
I also support my right hon. Friend’s point about sanitising hand gel. This House welcomes thousands of people every day from all over the country and beyond. I would hate to see it become a method for spreading a serious virus around the country. The House of Commons Commission might be meeting in 10 days’ time, but to me that lacks urgency. Sanitising hand gel should be available because people touch doors and door handles, and that is how the virus is being transmitted. That will happen much in this House if we do not provide hand gel very quickly.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is a debate next week on health inequalities, brought forward in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Valerie Vaz: By us—you should be doing it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: But that is the point of Opposition days—so that the Opposition can debate the issues that members of the Opposition wish to debate. That is  why they exist. I therefore believe that that request is being met.
As regards responsibilities of the House authorities, they are thoroughly being met and hand gel is available, particularly for the security staff. It is worth reiterating the Government’s advice, which is that people should wash their hands regularly and use a Kleenex when they cough or blow their nose.

Jo Gideon: As my right hon. Friend knows, for those furthest from the job market, good employment means good training and upskilling. Will he join me in congratulating North Staffordshire Engineering Group Training Association—which I visited recently—on its excellent academy, which places 98% of the people it trains from the most disadvantaged backgrounds into local engineering companies?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work she has been doing on this and absolutely congratulate North Staffordshire Engineering Group Training Association? It is so important to help people to get the skills they need. That is a main focus of Government policy, and it has long been championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

Khalid Mahmood: Over the past few days, Delhi has been burning at the hands of Hindu extremism. Twenty-four people have been deemed dead so far and hundreds have been injured in this extreme violence. The Indian Government have enacted the citizenship law, which has also produced concentration camps to house people who have lived in India for years. There is communal violence against Muslims day in, day out. Summary beatings, torture  and deaths are taking place on the streets, as well as the oppression of the Kashmiri people. Will the Leader of the House please find time to get the Government to make a statement or have a debate in Government time so as to have a serious discussion about human rights and civil liberties under the Indian Government?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this pressing matter. We are deeply concerned at the severity and scale of violations of freedom of religious belief in many parts of the world. In December, the Foreign Secretary announced an independent review of Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for persecuted Christians overseas, and there was debate on the persecution of Christians on 6 February. However, this does not mean that we are not concerned about the persecution of other religions across the world. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter at next month’s Foreign Office questions, but the seriousness of what he has mentioned in the House today has not passed the Government by.

Bill Cash: May I congratulate the Government on the statement that has been made with regard to the future relationship with the EU? Would the Leader of the House note that the European Scrutiny Committee will be fully engaged in this? It is being set up now. The questions of sovereignty and of the vital national interests of the United Kingdom are matters within our remit, and we will be giving them our absolute and total attention in future.
May I ask a question about the procedural motion on high-speed rail? What is this for? Is it not simply to provide for a carry-over motion? Should not phase 2a be rolled into phase 2b?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are back to 2b or not 2b, which seems to be my hon. Friend’s question. It is a procedural motion of a standard and routine kind that we need for the progression of business.
I am delighted that the European Scrutiny Committee will be bringing its eagle eye to look at the questions of sovereignty. My hon. Friend chairs that Committee with such brilliance. When I served on it for some years, it was one of the best Committees possible to be on. The diligence he applies to this is a model for us all.

Chris Stephens: According to estimates by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, there are up to 90 reports a day of online harms—that is one every 16 minutes. Given that the 13 voluntary codes of social media regulation appear to have failed, may we have a statement or debate on online harms regulations, so that we can get commitments from Ministers about Ofcom’s proposed enforcement powers?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The online harms White Paper sets out our plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. Ahead of that legislation, the Government will publish interim codes of practice on tackling the use of the internet by terrorists and those engaged in child sexual abuse and exploitation. This will ensure that companies take action now to tackle content that threatens our national security and the physical safety of children. These matters will obviously be discussed in this House.

Tom Hunt: Will the Leader of the House set aside time for this House to debate the College of Policing’s hate crime operational guidance to remove the requirement that police forces have to record non-crime hate incidents? I believe that the current system is open to abuse by politically motivated individuals who seek to smear people they disagree with. Earlier this morning, I was with Harry Miller discussing this very case.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Harry Miller last night at an event in support of free speech. Free speech is fundamental to this nation. Of course the Government have heard the very powerful judgment of the High Court in his case. The Home Secretary made it extremely clear yesterday that she will hold the police in this country to account for reducing crime, because that is the job of our wonderful police.

Judith Cummins: During National Apprenticeship Week, I visited a number of excellent local businesses in my constituency and met apprentices, who told me about the opportunities that their apprenticeship provides, but there are concerns from many, including the Education Secretary, that the apprenticeship levy is not working as it should, with too much focus on already highly skilled workers, not on those with no or low skills. May we have a debate in Government time on much-needed reforms to the apprenticeship levy?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I seem to remember that the apprenticeship levy came out of a Budget. We will have the Budget debate fairly shortly, which would be a suitable time to raise that important issue.

Peter Bone: May we have a statement next week—preferably on Wednesday—on celebrating United Nations Public Service Day, so that we can show our support for the police, the NHS and everyone who works in the public service? Can the Leader of the House tell me how we will celebrate that day? Why not have a bank holiday closest to that date?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend’s desired bank holidays would mean that none of us would ever be working. As a general rule, the Government try to avoid too many statements on Opposition days, as a courtesy to the Opposition, so the day that he suggests may not be ideal, but I pay tribute to our hard-working civil servants, particularly those in the Lord President of the Council’s office.

Andrew Slaughter: If we are not to have an oral statement on the Heathrow judgment, and given that the Government have decided not to appeal it, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to confirm that the Government do not intend to keep the disastrous third runway scheme alive?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the written ministerial statement that will be laid before the House today. There are already four oral statements today, with an important debate on St David’s day to follow. We have to be courteous towards the House, and it is unusual for an oral statement to be announced after the start of business, though not unprecedented.

Martin Vickers: The port of Grimsby, part of which falls in my constituency, is the country’s major centre for service and maintenance in the offshore energy industry. In view of the Government’s desire to move civil servants out of London, will my right hon. Friend ask the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at relocating the policy team and some of the officials who deal with regulation of the offshore sector to the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area? Could he arrange for a statement on that?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: By the time my hon. Friend has finished with his demands for rail, road and ports, Cleethorpes will be the new metropolis of the world, and everybody will be moving there. How fortunate the good people of Cleethorpes are to have my hon. Friend as their representative!

Alan Brown: My Scottish constituent is approaching her 16th birthday, but as her parents had French nationality when she  was born—despite the fact that her mum now has UK citizenship—she will have to pay £1,000 to get UK citizenship, which is unaffordable at her age. The fees are a rip-off, given that the Home Office uses the income to pay for other funds. May we have a debate in Government time on fair fees and what can be done to help my constituent get UK citizenship, so that she can go to college?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I once again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way he brings forward his constituents’ cases in the Chamber. I think everyone will have sympathy with the case that he raises, and I will be more than happy to take that up with the Home Office on his behalf. Fees ought to be fair, reasonable and proportionate, and I hope the House will remember that the application for settled status for European nationals is free.

Laura Trott: Tomorrow is the anniversary of the vote to set up the steering group to deal with complaints and grievances in Parliament. Will the Leader of the House update us on the latest developments on implementing Cox 3?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because that is open for consultation at the moment and may be of interest to many Members. The Cox 3 recommendation was about how we deal with complaints of bullying and harassment against Members of Parliament in an independent fashion. The proposal being consulted on is that it should be done by a wholly independent panel, but that if a sanction of suspension or expulsion from the House were to be recommended, that would have to be voted upon by the House. I strongly encourage all Members to make their views known while the consultation is live, rather than raising questions with me after it has happened, which is one of the risks of public life.

John Cryer: Following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), may we have a statement on vetting processes for officials? I hear what the Leader of the House said about security issues. However, the notion that we had a man working at the  heart of government who believes in eugenics and racial supremacy is deeply alarming and, I hope, unprecedented. May we have a statement?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier about vetting. However, I would say that my own view about eugenics—as far as I am aware, this is the Prime Minister’s view too, as he stated yesterday—is that it is the most dreadful belief and, to my mind, fundamentally ungodly.

Bob Blackman: On 19 April, we will commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in the Punjab in India. Last year, I led a debate in Westminster Hall, as we approached the centenary, and asked the Government to apologise. May we now have a debate in Government time and an opportunity for the Government to apologise on behalf of the British people for the massacre in India?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: From memory, Winston Churchill was himself very clear at the time about the appallingness of what happened 101 years ago. A debate was held last year, and the 100th anniversary was the right time to do it. I urge my hon. Friend to raise this matter in Foreign Office questions next month.

Zarah Sultana: Last week, I met a Coventry business that is owed a significant amount of money by contractors who have poor payment practices and have gone into administration. This company may now be forced to lay off workers. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to discuss how contractors drive local companies out of business, not based on their performance but because their payments have been withheld?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is an important issue, which is often raised in this House. I urge the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate on the specific issues affecting contractors in her constituency. However, the Government have codes of conduct, and as the Government ourselves, we try to ensure that we pay contractors promptly.

James Sunderland: Given the current focus on the imminent strategic defence and security review, will the Leader of the House agree to a much-needed debate on defence?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Backbench Business Committee, when it was set up, was given four or possibly five days in its total allocation that were meant to be for defence, so that should be raised with the Backbench Business Committee in about a week’s time.

Martyn Day: I am currently waiting for a response to a public petition that I submitted on behalf of Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages campaign relating to high energy costs of as much as £150 per week. Will the Leader of the House assist in moving this issue forward by securing a debate in Government time on fuel poverty and energy price caps?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If any hon. Member has not received a response from a Department in a reasonable amount of time, I am more than happy to facilitate that, but I think that debate is probably one for the Backbench Business Committee.

Philip Hollobone: I bring good news from Kettering, where last night Kettering Borough Council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, voted for the 10th year in a row—in the teeth of opposition from independent, Lib Dem and Labour councillors—to freeze its share of the council tax. It has done this at the same time as maintaining frontline public services, as well as maintaining financial support for the voluntary sector. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seek information from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about whether any other district or borough council has managed such a fine record? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the inspirational leader of Kettering Borough Council, Councillor Russell Roberts, on this fine achievement?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think a statue should be erected to Councillor Russell Roberts for this achievement. It would come out of public subscription, and I would be more than happy to make a modest contribution. It is exactly how government should operate at all levels. I am full of admiration—unbounded—for Kettering Council and for my hon. Friend in ensuring that Kettering is kept in good order.

Diana R. Johnson: May we have a debate about the role of private sector train companies that manage train stations and provide substandard facilities for passengers? In Hull, TransPennine Express built new toilets and a waiting room in 2018, but by April they were seen to be botched. The toilets smell of urine and the waiting room is not suitable. I was told in December 2018 that they would be fixed by 2019, but we are now at the end of February 2020—and no action.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady, as always, raises an important point about her constituents. She has raised the matter publicly, and I hope that the operating company is duly shamed by the smell that is coming from the toilets in Hull. When money is spent it should be spent properly, and people should be held to account for the way they spend it.

John Stevenson: To follow the theme set by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), in Carlisle we have part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—namely the Rural Payments Agency. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the likelihood of further relocation of the activities of that Department, and would he support such a move to Carlisle?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend tempts me beyond my brief—one never knows: I might start advocating for all those agencies to move to North East Somerset rather than to the constituencies of my hon. Friends. The point has been made and heard, and I will ensure that it is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Sam Tarry: May I bring the House’s attention to early-day motion 220 on the harassment of trade unionists at London City airport?
[That this House reaffirms the right of workers to organise collectively into trade unions; stipulates that this right includes workers at London City Airport; notes that  a Unite the Union activist, was suspended and had disciplinary proceedings brought against them less than two weeks after the airport received an official request for union recognition in August 2019; recalls that in 2012 an Employment Tribunal found in an interim relief test in London City Airport Ltd v Chacko that another trade union representative had been similarly suspended by City Airport three days after the announcement of a recognition ballot; states that such intimidation is unacceptable; and calls on City Airport to end harassment of trade unionists and enable its workers to decide upon how they wish to be represented.]
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate or statement about what has gone on at London City airport? Surely a Government who claim to be on the side of the workers will want to make time for that, so that Members can hear that such things will not be allowed to continue. One of my constituents has been sacked from their job, specifically for trade union activities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Everybody should feel content in their place of work. The House of Commons has set up the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme to deal with complaints, and we urge other employers to have similar arrangements in place. I tend to think that such specific issues are well handled by Adjournment debates, which bring them to the right level of attention.

Margaret Ferrier: My constituent was employed by a recruitment agency but had to leave her job for health reasons. Despite a promise that she would be put on garden leave to help her recuperate, and paid for her two-week notice period, she has still not received the money that she is due for the work carried out. May we have a debate in Government time on the exploitation of workers in the gig economy?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: People who are contractually owed money must be paid, and the hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. A debate on such matters is not necessarily the right way to go about things, but it is right to raise that particular case. I hope that the company will be shamed into making payments, and I feel great sympathy for the hon. Lady’s constituent who ought to be paid if she has done the work.

Bill Esterson: On 9 January the Leader of the House advised me to ask the Secretary of State for Education for a meeting about Lydiate Primary School, and to come back to him if such a meeting was not forthcoming. Seven weeks later, that meeting has not been offered by Ministers. Will the Leader of the House please intervene, not on my behalf, but on that of the children and staff of Lydiate Primary School, which is unsafe and unsuitable for education?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hard-working civil servants have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will make sure that that is followed up with the Department for Education immediately after this statement.

Owen Thompson: Bank of Scotland recently announced a series of branch closures around Scotland, including in Loanhead in my constituency.  Midlothian is often referred to as one of the fastest growing communities in Scotland, yet it is now left without a branch of that bank, which was the final one. Despite meeting Bank of Scotland immediately after that announcement, I have had no further answers to my questions. May we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to consider the impact on a community when the final branch of a bank is closed?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This issue is raised regularly in these sessions, and I have arranged meetings with the relevant Minister. It is important to recognise that these are commercial decisions, and the Government cannot intervene in them individually. Banks must balance customer interests, market competition, and other commercial interests when taking their decisions. Since May 2017, high street banks have signed up to the Access to Banking Standard, which commits them to working with customers and communities to minimise the impact of branch closures. If that is not happening, the Government will have to look at that very carefully.

Chris Elmore: In June last year, the Home Office consultation on tackling violence against shopworkers ended. I know the Leader of the House will agree that there is never any excuse for abuse towards shopworkers and will welcome the work being done by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to protect shopworkers. Will he ask Home Office Ministers to come to the Floor of the House to make a statement, so we can start to tackle these abuses?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no excuse for abusing people who work in shops. It is quite improper behaviour. I cannot promise a statement, but I will raise his question with the Home Office to see what the response is to the report.

Kate Green: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House, I was pleased to notice the motions for the constitution of most Select Committees. However, they did not include motions in relation to the Committee on Standards and the Privileges Committee, both of which have a long legacy of work left over from the previous Parliament. Will the Leader advise me when he expects those motions to be tabled?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of those Committees. Motions will be brought forward as soon as is reasonably practical.

Patricia Gibson: With further international discussions taking place in May in New York, will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining the UK Government’s hostility to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons? Does he not appreciate that that hostility towards prohibition is inconsistent with the UK’s strategic objectives and its obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to make attempts in good faith to move towards the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons programmes?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think we have to be realistic and recognise that the world is the world that we live in and that nuclear weapons are around. It is in the UK’s national interest to maintain our nuclear deterrent.

Stephen Doughty: I was confused by the answer the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is no longer in his place, about the security and defence review. The Prime Minister put out a written statement yesterday, but he intimated that there would be an oral statement or a debate—and not one in Backbench Business time. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that will take place, and will the Intelligence and Security Committee have been reformed by then so we can consider the Russia report as a part of that?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As the Prime Minister has said, “Don’t get too excited about the Russian report.” While it is not released, the conspiracy theorists are having a whale of a time. When it comes out, I think they will be sadly disappointed. The point I was making is that the Backbench Business Committee was given responsibility, under its brief when it was set up, for defence debates. Of course, if the Government bring forward specific statements, questions will follow those statements.

Justin Madders: On Tuesday, the Mayors of Salford, Manchester and London came together outside Parliament to hear from victims of the cladding scandal. They heard terrible stories from leaseholders trapped in properties about the financial ruin they face and the mental torment of going to sleep every night in a flat that they know could be a death trap. There is clearly a need for some time for a debate on the Floor of the House, and for clarity and leadership from the Government. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is sat next to the Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench. Can he guarantee that we will get that time as a matter of urgency?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman’s question is very well timed, with my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary sitting next to me. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend takes this matter with the utmost  seriousness. Some £600 million of taxpayers’ money is being committed to removing dangerous cladding. The Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend, are ensuring that the dangerous cladding is removed, and that houses and flats are being made safe for people. If I may say while he is sitting here, the number of times my right hon. Friend has raised this issue with other Ministers, and is pushing for it as hard as possible, can give the hon. Gentleman confidence.

Martin Docherty: Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has announced a temporary suspension of evening and weekend GP out-of-hours services in Vale of Leven Hospital in my constituency, giving the reason that GPs are affected by UK changes to pensions. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have highlighted the drastic problems posed to the NHS workforce by current pension tax policy. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is now time, before the Budget, for a statement on what action the Government are taking to tackle this issue, which has far-ranging consequences for the whole of the UK?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman very cleverly answers his own question when he says, “before the Budget”. These are matters for the Budget, but I think there is a lot of sympathy with what he is saying.

Jim Shannon: In India, attacks by Hindus on Christians and Muslims have increased and there is evidence that the police are turning a blind eye. Hundreds have been killed, thousands have been injured and chaos reigns, all because of the new citizenship law that disenfranchises Christians and Muslims. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this urgent and very disturbing matter?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman may well have heard my earlier answer to a similar question. I do not want to repeat all of that, other than to reiterate the point that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise it at  next month’s Foreign Office questions. It is a very serious matter.

Rough Sleeping

Robert Jenrick: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the latest rough sleeping annual statistics for 2019, published today, and the Government’s new approach.
I think we can all agree that it is a moral shame that we see so many people sleeping rough on our streets. We are determined to end the blight of rough sleeping and have placed this great social ill at the heart of the moral mission of the Government. Today’s figures are encouraging. They show that for a second year in a row the number of people sleeping rough has fallen. Across England, the numbers have fallen by 9%, building on last year’s reduction which was the first fall in eight years. Areas funded by the Government’s rough sleeping initiative saw a 12% decrease. Manchester is down 26%; Camden down 54%; Birmingham down 43%; and Enfield down 69%. Cornwall is down 55%; Hastings down 56%; the City of London is down 39%; Swale down 69%; Bedford down 41%; and Tameside is down by 86%. London saw a decrease of 11%. That is the first decrease in the number of rough sleepers in London for six years and the largest decrease since 2010. That, as colleagues who represent London constituencies will know, comes despite the very considerable and specific challenges faced in the capital, including, as the figures show, the fact that 42% of those sleeping rough in the city, and quite possibly more than that, are non-UK nationals.
Those figures confirm what I have seen since I became Housing Secretary in the summer: dedicated and targeted support, backed by significant levels of Government support, is getting vulnerable people off the streets and into safe accommodation where they can begin to turn their lives around. The Government’s strategy is working. I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of charities, service providers, local authorities and many, many volunteers backed by Government funding across the country, who are working tirelessly to give rough sleepers the support they need to help them off the streets, and to begin the long and complex process of turning their lives around. That does not mean our work ends here. We are perhaps coming up out of the valley, but we are very far from the mountain top.
This Conservative Government have made it an overriding priority to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. There is a great deal more to do and we must be honest with ourselves about the scale of the challenge and tackle it head-on with renewed vigour. That is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister and I are today announcing that Dame Louise Casey will lead a review of rough sleeping. This work will consider the links between 24-hour street activity and rough sleeping, particularly physical and mental health issues, and provide advice to me and to the Prime Minister on how we can best use the levers of central and local government to support this group and continue to reduce rough sleeping across the country. I know that Dame Louise’s vast experience, rigour and candour, and the fact that she has worked across party for many years, mean that she is the right person to look at what is needed and help to get the job done. I want to support  Dame Louise to move at a pace commensurate with the seriousness and urgency of the action we must take now.
Meanwhile, we will continue to build on our successful rough sleeping strategy, guided by the best evidence, intervening rapidly where people are sleeping on the streets, and supporting people’s recovery to ensure that they never have to sleep rough again. Putting this ambition into practice, the Government have today announced £236 million of new money for move-on accommodation, safely supporting up to an additional 6,000 rough sleepers, and those at immediate risk of rough sleeping, off the streets into the safe and secure accommodation they deserve, with support wrapped around them. This is on top of the £437 million that the Government have provided to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in the next financial year, including more than £112 million to fund services through the rough sleeping initiative. This funding will be used by councils to provide up to 6,000 beds and 2,500 support staff over the next year, so the number of beds will be increasing very rapidly.
We recognise that there are particular challenges in responding to the increase in European economic area national rough sleepers, and hon. Members may recall that as part of the cold weather fund, the Government took the unprecedented decision to extend limited powers to the most affected local authorities to support certain EEA nationals sleeping rough for a limited period. That approach has been successful, with over 400 EEA nationals accommodated in November and December last year, and many of them supported into work or to return home. The Government have today taken the decision to continue some of those services until 31 December 2020, when the transition period ends and the new immigration system will be in place. I will work closely with the Home Secretary on how we address those challenges at the end of the transition period.
While prevention, outreach and emergency support are of course vital, we need secure, sustainable accommodation to end rough sleeping for good, and increasing the provision of affordable housing is fundamental to making that happen. This Government have delivered nearly half a million new, affordable homes. We have also abolished the council borrowing cap, so that local authorities are able to build up to 10,000 more social homes a year, and many are doing that.
We cannot and will not let that momentum slip. That is why we have already committed to 250,000 new affordable homes by March 2022 through the affordable homes programme, backed by £9 billion. We are increasing the supply of social housing and we will ensure that rough sleepers, and those at risk of rough sleeping, are provided with homes that are available long term and are appropriate to their needs. We simply must build more homes as a country and I will be doing all I can to ensure that that happens.
However, boosting housing supply is just one of many long-term measures that we must take to properly and permanently address homelessness and rough sleeping. We have to redouble our efforts to tackle the underlying problems that have led many people to fall into a life on the streets. Last year, four in 10 of the rough sleeping population in London were suffering from a severe drug dependency and the same proportion were suffering from alcohol dependency. Half of all rough sleepers  were assessed as having a mental health support  need, and, shockingly, data from 2017 indicates that eight in 10 rough sleepers who have died in London suffered from severe mental health conditions. We cannot allow this injustice to continue. We are stepping up our work to provide specialist help and support for those suffering from mental ill health, and that is backed by £30 million of additional funding from NHS England.
On top of that, we are working to implement test models of community-based provision across six projects that are designed to enable access to health and support services for people who are sleeping rough with both mental ill health and substance dependency needs. Rough sleeping is as much a health challenge as a housing one and our work will reflect that. We also need a concerted effort to bring the different support services together—from outreach to housing, health, policing and immigration—so that we can effectively tackle the multiple issues that lead to individuals finding themselves homeless.
We are acutely aware of the scale of the challenge before us. Ending rough sleeping within this Parliament is one of the most ambitious targets set by any Government since the publication of the Beveridge report and the creation of the welfare state. We accept this challenge as a moral mission and obligation that we cannot pass up. Many of the underlying causes of rough sleeping that I have spoken about are deep-rooted, built up over successive generations and successive Governments. I hope that Members across the House will support us in this collective endeavour and help us, as a country, to achieve this simple but profoundly important objective: to bring rough sleeping to an end once and for all.

Sarah Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Rough sleeping is not inevitable in a country as decent and well off as ours. The cost of a decade of austerity has been over 700 deaths last year on our streets and huge numbers of children and families in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation. It is the defining mark of this Conservative Government. Any improvement on that record is welcome, but today’s figures show that the number of people sleeping rough in shop doorways and on park benches is more than double what it was when Labour left government. That shames us all and it shames Conservative Ministers most of all. It must end.
Today’s figures come with a big health warning: everyone, from the Secretary of State to homelessness charities, knows that these statistics are an unreliable undercount of the true scale of the problem. The figures have been refused national statistics status—a mark of
“trustworthiness, quality and public value”
Yesterday, Labour’s shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask it to investigate their accuracy.
That follows new data obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, showing that Ministers have been dramatically under-reporting the scale of rough sleeping. The BBC revealed that 25,000 people are sleeping rough in England—five times the number recorded by the Government’s statistics. Even on today’s unreliable figures, the Government are set to break their pledge to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. At the current rate of progress, they will not end rough  sleeping until 2037, so while the Secretary of State’s ambitious words are welcome, how does he intend to reach his target without further investment?
The announcement today that the Government will go some way towards following Labour’s proposals and fund housing for rough sleepers following the Housing First model is welcome, but we remember that the Secretary of State’s party promised 200,000 starter homes and did not build a single one. When the Prime Minster was Mayor of London, he promised to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012, but rough sleeping doubled. We are right to be sceptical and ask the Secretary of State to clarify: by what date will these homes will be made available? How will the locations be determined? And is the funding genuinely extra, as he claims, or has it been diverted from other programmes in the Department’s budget?
It is not just that the Government have turned a blind eye to the homelessness crisis for so long—which they have—but they have refused to face up to the fact that they actively created the crisis. They have cut £1 billion a year from local homelessness reduction budgets and there is no commitment to reverse that. They have cut investment in new homes for social rent to record levels, with no commitment to reverse that, and they have failed to deliver on their pledge to end unfair evictions—the leading cause of homelessness.
Much like other symptoms of the housing crisis, such as the spiralling housing benefit bill, the funding needed to tackle rough sleeping will continue to rise if we do not invest in addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. That means more than warm words about bringing health and housing together; it means facing up to the impact of deep cuts to welfare, mental health support and addiction services since 2010. However, the Government are in denial about the root causes of homelessness. Perhaps that is why the Housing Secretary chose to appoint someone as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, with specific responsibility for rough sleeping, who thinks that sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice and who claimed that
“many people choose to be on the street”—[Official Report, 29 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 858.]
He also claimed that it is more comfortable than going on exercise in the Army— [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Sarah Jones: That is particularly insulting to the hundreds of our armed forces veterans who are sleeping rough, who this Government have abandoned despite their years of service to our country.
As the first snow of the new decade falls on our streets outside, we must face up to the human cost of this Conservative Government: two people a day are dying on our streets; 127,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation; and the rough sleeping figures are five times higher than the official statistics. Homelessness was tackled by the last Labour Government when we inherited a similar scale of crisis. We reduced rough sleeping by three quarters. The Secretary of State’s announcements today will not go far enough to deliver on his targets. To quote Louise Casey:
“We have gone from a beacon of success to an international example of failure”,
and we
“must not allow this issue to be ignored, we must feel its impact and act as the country we are proud to be.”

Robert Jenrick: I accept the hon. Lady’s comments and say with all sincerity and humility that we must do more as a country to tackle rough sleeping. That is exactly what this new Conservative Administration intend to do. The Prime Minister and I have put this at the heart of our agenda, and we intend to deliver on the promises we have made today.
The hon. Lady asks me about the statistics, but I think she is misinformed. The statistics published today are not the Government’s statistics. They are statistics produced by a rigorous count conducted by local authorities, with independent verification; they are then compiled independently by Homeless Link, which is the umbrella organisation for some of the most respected homelessness charities in this country, including Shelter, Crisis and St Mungo’s. The methodology, which has been used for 10 years, is broadly the same as that used in most developed countries, including Canada and Japan; it is highly respected and it is vastly superior to the methodology used under the last Labour Government, when the current shadow Secretary of State for Housing, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was this country’s Housing Minister. That methodology was deeply flawed. It asked local authorities to count only if, in their opinion, there were more than 10 rough sleepers in their area. As a result, there was no count in vast parts of the country. The statistics published today are robust and a huge improvement on those that came before them.
The hon. Lady asks about the rough sleeping initiative and the funding we have put in. In fact, the increases are significant. RSI funding has gone up by 30% this year. We are spending £400 million in the next financial year, and the announcement made today is of an additional £236 million—and yes, it is new money.
The hon. Lady spoke about housing more generally. I have to say that last year we built more homes in this country than we have in any year of the last 30. On average, we are building more affordable homes every year than the last Labour Government built, and more council houses were built last year than in the 13 years of Labour Government. Where does Labour have control? In Wales. How many council houses were built in Wales last year? Fifty-seven. How many were built the year before? Eighty. How many in each of the three years before that? Zero, zero and zero. What is the No. 1 challenge facing the Government in achieving our housing targets? The failing Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
The hon. Lady asks about our commitment to a fairer deal between tenants and landlords. In the Queen’s Speech, we said we would introduce a renter’s rights Bill, which will be a significant piece of legislation. We are in the process of drafting that Bill, which will absolutely bring an end to section 21.
Finally, the hon. Lady made some disparaging remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I point out politely that in the past few years, he has spent over five months sleeping rough on the streets of London, Birmingham and New York city. I may be mistaken, but I do not think the hon.  Lady has done that. I do not think any other Member of this House has spent so much time with members of our homeless population. I know for a fact that he has members of staff in his office in this House whom he has mentored off the streets and into a better life. Sometimes, he asks unacceptable questions, as George Orwell would put it, but we have to ask unacceptable questions sometimes if we as politicians genuinely want to tackle the big questions of our age. To tackle rough sleeping, we have to tackle addiction.

Tim Loughton: I commend my right hon. Friend on his commitment and the additional investment by the Government, which is starting to bear fruit, although there is still much to say. I welcome in particular his recognition that solving homelessness is not just about sustainable income; it is about dealing with the underlying problems of those who find themselves on the street. To that end, may I invite my hon. Friend to come to Worthing to see a really innovative scheme—a partnership between Turning Tides, a homeless charity, Worthing Borough Council and a developer, Roffey Homes? It has made available a nurses’ home, which will be developed after five years. There, rough sleepers are given not just accommodation, but support from mental health services and the benefits office, and help with sustainable living. Because of that, the number of overnight rough sleepers, which had been in the 30s, was down to seven at the last count. That is the sort of innovation and partnership we want. I hope my right hon. Friend will come to see the project and make sure the example is spread throughout the country.

Robert Jenrick: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the heart of our new strategy is bringing together a co-ordinated approach in central Government. Dame Louise Casey and I will work to ensure that all of us—the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office—work together as a team to deliver our commitment. We already see that work in local communities by some brilliant charities. For example, St Mungo’s takes mobile hubs to rough sleeping hotspots to bring all the services together. That is the surest way to tackle the challenge.

Martyn Day: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I agree that it is a moral scandal that we have rough sleeping in this day and age, and I wish him every success with his strategy to tackle rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament.
I have a few points to make. First, in the four years to 2019, the Scottish Government delivered five times more social rented properties per head of population than the Westminster Government. Progress out of poverty is thereby made more likely. Poverty rates are lower in Scotland owing to the existence of affordable housing. Earlier this month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that
“for someone with the same life circumstances such as qualifications, wage and family type, progress out of poverty is more likely if they live in Scotland or Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK.”
The JRF also attributes lower poverty rates in Scotland than in England and Wales to
“lower rents in the social housing sector as well as Scotland having a higher proportion of social rented properties”.
I have a couple of questions. Will the Government’s review of their homelessness strategy look at what is being done in other countries, including Scotland? Will they follow the Scottish Government’s lead in building genuinely affordable housing?

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We will certainly and happily look at the experience in Scotland and other parts of the Union, as we do at international examples. One of the purposes of bringing in someone as respected as Dame Louise Casey, who not only has a great deal of experience within the UK but is an internationally respected figure, is to learn from other parts of the world. I believe we are already doing that. Our Housing First pilot is learning from what happens in Finland and the United States and we have seen tremendous progress—success rates up to 90% in some areas. First is the simple aim of getting people into accommodation; then there is provision of sophisticated, long-term, wrap-around support. We are keen to learn from best practice all over the world.

Angela Joy Richardson: Will the independent review by Dame Louise Casey engage with the many excellent charities across the country, such as St Mungo’s and Crisis, as well as Guildford Action, which is a local centre of excellence in my constituency helping those who are homeless and sleeping rough?

Robert Jenrick: It certainly will. As I said, there are many fantastic organisations across the country. It has been my pleasure to visit many of them in my brief tenure as Housing Secretary. I went with the Prime Minister this morning to visit the Connection by St Martin in the Fields, where I met staff and clients involved with the work there. I pay tribute to them and to other organisations across the country. We want to learn from them and ensure that we build on their work.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the ambition the Secretary of State has set out. As he knows, a service at St Paul’s cathedral two weeks ago, in which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took part, celebrated the work of the church-based homelessness night shelters in London. There is now at least one in every London borough, each involving seven or sometimes 14 places of worship. They spare thousands from sleeping rough in London during the winter. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the work of those many volunteers, but also agree with the preacher at that service, the Bishop of Edmonton, who said that volunteers should not really have to take this work on?

Robert Jenrick: I was sorry not to be able to join the right hon. Gentleman at that service. I intended to be there, but a commitment arose in the House. I absolutely pay tribute to volunteers across the country and the very important work done by churches and other faith organisations, which I think we all know about from our constituencies, but which is particularly prevalent in London. Of course there is a role for the state. I hope he can see from my commitment and that of the Prime Minister today that we intend to put in the resources, but this is also a moral issue for all of us as a country. I think we should see great organisations and volunteers, praise them, and encourage them to continue their good work.

Bob Blackman: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the work that he is doing to end rough sleeping for good, but rough sleeping is clearly the tip of the iceberg—the visible sign of homelessness. It is estimated that more than 300,000 people in the country are homeless on any one day, and to achieve my right hon. Friend’s aim, we will need to build not 10,000 but 90,000 new social homes a year. What measures will he take to ensure that we build the homes that are needed, especially in London—I know that he has condemned the current Mayor of London—so that people are not forced to sleep rough? The human and financial cost of putting those people back on their feet is huge.

Robert Jenrick: Let me again praise the good work that my hon. Friend has done, not least in presenting the Bill that became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which has played such a crucial role in driving some of the results that we are seeing today. He is absolutely right: we must not simply deal with the symptoms, but also tackle the cause. That may include some of the health issues that we have already discussed today, but the fundamental issue for me as Housing Secretary is that we must build more homes of all types in all parts of the country. Last year we built more homes than had been built in any of the last 30 years, but we have now set ourselves the objective of building a million new homes during the current Parliament, and we would like to see house building rise to 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the decade.
These are difficult and challenging targets which will require further Government investment in infrastructure and affordable housing, and we intend to make that investment. They will also require a great many councils to make difficult decisions. If councils really care about the acute housing need in their communities, they will have to use imagination and determination to ensure that the necessary homes are built, and we will be pushing them to do so.

Edward Davey: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a moral scandal that hundreds of homeless people are still dying every year on our streets, without the palliative care that they ought to receive during their last weeks and months? Will he look at the Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament? Will he also agree to meet me and the charities that helped me to write the Bill, including Pathway, St Mungo’s, Hospice UK and Shelter, and enable them to use some of the funds that he has announced today—in conjunction with the NHS—to end the scandal of terminally ill homeless people dying without proper care?

Robert Jenrick: The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points. It was for those humanitarian reasons, among others, that we chose to use the derogation enabling public money to be spent on compassionate services for non-UK nationals on our streets. We did not feel it was right that those individuals were suffering in silence and we were unable to support them. As I said in my statement, there are serious underlying issues. According to the latest figures that we have, from 2017, about 90% of the people who have died on our streets were suffering from serious mental health conditions, and we need to address those. I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman.

Stuart Anderson: I welcome the additional funds, but will they be made available to the councils around the country that  are working hard to end rough sleeping, including Wolverhampton? May I also invite my right hon. Friend to visit a charity that he knows well, the Good Shepherd Ministry in Wolverhampton, to see the new facilities that have just opened?

Robert Jenrick: I should be delighted to visit Wolverhampton. As I have said before, I volunteered at that charity as a teenager, and it is a fantastic organisation. We will be working to see how we can roll out the funds to provide those 6,000 move-on units across the country, which we will do in various ways: through new properties, through use of the private rented sector, and by refurbishing existing accommodation.
There are numerous good examples in the west midlands. Housing First is being piloted there, and just before Christmas I visited Walsall, not so far from my hon. Friend’s constituency, to see a lady who had moved into good-quality accommodation for the first time in many years after sleeping rough in Walsall. That is exactly the kind of intervention that we want to see throughout the country.

Rosie Duffield: The south-east has the highest rates of homelessness outside London. The Secretary of State has mentioned the provision of beds and the moving-on service, but does he recognise that this issue does not simply relate to those who are sleeping in doorways, although that is bad enough? Every day my team helps families whose members—sometimes pregnant—are often sleeping three or  four to one bedroom. When will affordable, suitable accommodation come to Canterbury for them, so that my team no longer has to bid daily for the two or three properties that are currently available?

Robert Jenrick: We are investing more than ever before in affordable housing. Our affordable homes programme is a £9 billion commitment to provide 250,000 affordable homes. We have also made a manifesto commitment that when the programme ends we will replace it with another, which I hope will be bigger and more ambitious and help to make genuinely affordable homes available in more parts of the country, including Canterbury.

Mark Logan: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s positive statement. Will he join me in paying tribute to the only Conservative-led council in Greater Manchester, which is working to bring an end to rough sleeping in Bolton?

Robert Jenrick: I certainly will. I do not have the figures for Bolton at my fingertips, but Greater Manchester achieved a significant reduction in rough sleeping as a result of good work by councils and funding from the rough sleeping initiative, and we want that to continue. I believe I am going to visit Bolton shortly. I know that my hon. Friend and some of his councillors have been very involved in that initiative, and have been raising money for local charities by sleeping rough.

Bambos Charalambous: An estimated two thirds of released prisoners who are homeless go on to reoffend. What steps is the Minister  taking with the Ministry of Justice to tackle the problem of people who are released from prison without secure accommodation? Crisis has raised the issue of the criminalisation of homeless people who are rough sleepers. Does the Minister support the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824?

Robert Jenrick: We are reviewing the Vagrancy Act, taking into account the differing opinions on the way forward, and will deliver advice on that shortly. We are absolutely focused on the challenge of ensuring that ex-offenders can have safe and secure accommodation and begin to rebuild their life. We are investing in pilots that are being organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), the homelessness Minister, and we are working closely with the Lord Chancellor, as we did with his predecessors.

Jo Gideon: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of additional funds and an urgent review. May I also pay tribute to our wonderful local charities and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which have been doing such tireless work in this regard?
A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of seeing a production by a charity called Voices of Stoke, which presented the back stories of people who were sleeping rough and examined their complex needs. It was enormously powerful. I think that we all welcome a knowledge of the complexity of why people end up on the streets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no solution that might help to end rough sleeping once and for all should be taken off the table?

Robert Jenrick: I certainly do. I hope that my hon. Friend, and other Members in all parts of the House, will recognise not only our determination to tackle the issue but the fact that we are taking a nuanced view of a complex and sophisticated challenge and bringing together all Departments, from health to housing, to address it.
I pay particular tribute to the volunteers, the organisations and the Conservative-led council in Stoke. The city has seen a reduction of more than 50% in the number of rough sleepers over the last year, which is a tremendous achievement, and I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my thanks to all who have been involved in those efforts.

Diana R. Johnson: Rough sleeping has quadrupled in Hull over the last decade, which I think we can all agree is shameful, but does the Secretary of State agree with the statement by St Mungo’s that £1 billion less is being spent on supporting single homeless people than was being spent a decade ago?

Robert Jenrick: We have been taking action through the Homelessness Reduction Act, and there will be important work for us to do as we approach the comprehensive spending review to ensure that councils have the funds that will enable them to continue their own work. We have also ensured that the local housing allowance will no longer be frozen, but will rise in the next financial year in line with the consumer prices index. As I have said repeatedly, the central task for me as Housing Secretary is to build more homes of all types in all parts of the country, and I certainly hope we can work with the council in Hull to deliver that.

Greg Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank him in particular for the £576,000 that has been awarded following a joint bid from Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe District Councils, which cover my constituency along with Chiltern and South Bucks. Does he agree that we need to encourage more councils to work together to tackle homelessness, not least so that they can build the strongest possible partnerships with charities and specialist service providers, which do not necessarily organise according to council boundaries?

Robert Jenrick: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There are some fantastic councils across the country, and today’s figures would not have been achieved without them. I pay tribute to them, and encourage them to continue to learn from each other and work with voluntary groups, with charities and, of course, with the Government. If there is anything further that we can do to assist my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Buckinghamshire, we will certainly do it.

Child Protection

Victoria Atkins: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police, fire and rescue services’ thematic report on its national child protection inspection programme. This important report was published today and summarises the findings of 64 inspections and re-inspections of police forces’ approaches to child protection since the programme began in 2014.
Keeping our children safe is an absolute priority for this Government, and we welcome Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s work in this area. Protecting vulnerable people should be of utmost importance to the police, and we are committed to ensuring that police forces demonstrate continued improvement in this regard. The activity of our independent inspectorates is critical to our ability to monitor progress and drive change. In the five years since it began, the national child protection inspection programme has been a vital source of independent scrutiny and challenge, and it has been instrumental in driving improvements in the way the police work with vulnerable children. As we know too well, this is an area of police work in which we have seen some of the worst failures in the past.
The report notes that
“we have continued to see an unambiguous commitment from police leaders, officers and staff to the protection of children.”
The report recognises improvements—in some cases, significant improvements—in the service received by children at risk. In every case, when inspectors returned to a police force that had previously been inspected, they saw progress being made and better outcomes for children. They saw examples of good, innovative work, such as the programme in Wales to provide early support to children exposed to adverse childhood experiences. Officers are better at understanding the signs of vulnerability and recognising children who are at risk. We welcome the positive findings in today’s report.
The report is clear, however, that more needs to be done. Although the police have a better understanding of risk, their resources are too often focused on areas of acute risk. Not enough is being done to spot the earliest signs of risk and prevent those risks from escalating. There are concerning findings around the detention of vulnerable children. Children are too often being detained in custody when they should not be, and they are not being appropriately safeguarded in those situations. There are inconsistencies in how forces manage dangerous offenders, and the escalation in the prevalence of digital technology in offending is a significant challenge, meaning that it is taking too long to identify and safeguard children who have been the victims of sexual abuse online.
These are serious matters, and I want to set out the steps the Government are taking to address them. As the Home Secretary stated yesterday, we are an ambitious and dynamic new Government with law and order at our heart. Our mission is clear. It is to deliver on the people’s priorities: to cut crime and to protect the public. We have recognised the huge demands placed on our police forces, and we are addressing these pressures with the recruitment of an unprecedented 20,000 additional  officers over three years. We are investing a further £1.1 billion in policing next year—taking the total up  to £15.2 billion—with the help of police and crime commissioners using their precepts. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are driving a united Government response with a new cross-Whitehall crime and justice taskforce to ensure that we use every lever at our disposal to fight crime. However, as today’s report makes clear, the rise in high-harm crimes such as serious violence and child sexual abuse is having a particular impact on the most vulnerable, requiring more from our police officers. They need to be able to look beyond the obvious and to develop a deeper understanding of risk.
We have worked with the College of Policing and are providing £1.9 million of funding to develop a more comprehensive package of training for first responders, so that they are better able to identify signs of vulnerability and provide support to victims. We have also funded the police’s own vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme to develop policing best practice in response to vulnerability as a whole. The programme is recognised in today’s report for its work to evaluate best practice in early intervention. We have introduced stronger multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements with shared responsibility between local authorities, police and health partners for the local strategic response to safeguarding, including harms such as child sexual exploitation. Again, these reforms, which were implemented in every local area in England last September, are recognised in today’s report as a key opportunity to deliver the kind of systemic change we need to see.
In relation to the inappropriate detention of children, we will look carefully at the recommendation and do what we can to ensure that vulnerable children receive an appropriate service from the police. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the 2017 concordat on children in custody, which sets out the statutory duties of the police and local authorities and provides a protocol for how transfers should work in practice.
Today’s report also recognises that the nature of risk is changing, and investment in officers and changing police culture are only part of the solution. That is why we are investing in new capabilities to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable children through crimes such as child sexual exploitation, child criminal exploitation and county lines. Last year we announced a £30 million investment in funding for work to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation in 2020-21. The new funding will include investment in the child abuse image database—CAID—which the Home Office has developed in collaboration with UK law enforcement. CAID is a single database of indecent images of children which enables UK law enforcement to work collaboratively to safeguard children and bring people to justice. The new funding will allow us to deliver upgrades to CAID, including a fast, forensic tool to rapidly analyse seized devices and find images already known to law enforcement; an image categorisation algorithm to assist officers to identify and categorise the severity of illegal imagery; and a capability to detect images with matching scenes to help to identify children in indecent images in order to safeguard victims.
We have announced £25 million of targeted investment across 2019-20 and 2020-21 to strengthen the law enforcement response to county lines and increase the  support available to the children, young people and families who are affected. This is in addition to establishing the national county lines co-ordination centre, with £3.6 million of Home Office funding, and providing a range of support for county lines victims. We also recognise that by the time children experience these forms of exploitation, the harm has been done. Police and other services need to spot the signs of risk and intervene earlier. Through our £13 million four-year trusted relationships programme, we are trialling 11 innovative projects in England working to protect vulnerable 10 to 17-year-olds who are at high risk of sexual exploitation and other forms of harm. We want to do more, however, which is why this year we will be publishing a first-of-its-kind national strategy to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation.
We welcome today’s report. The protection of vulnerable children from harm is of the highest priority to this Government, as it should be to our police forces, and the inspectorate’s work in this area is vital in shaping our work in the future. The Home Secretary intends to meet inspectors to discuss today’s report and understand what more we and the police can do to ensure that children receive the highest levels of protection in the future. I commend this statement to the House.

Louise Haigh: This report is utterly damning and should shame us. It finds that the current system of protecting the most vulnerable children in our country is unsustainable, that the approach of police forces is not proactive enough, and that vulnerable children are simply not being identified or protected, with resources and the failures and variability of partnership working being identified as key concerns. The report comes on the same day as a leaked Government report into the drug trade, which shows that vulnerable children are falling into the grip of gangs at an unprecedented rate. Those are two sides of the same crisis that is reaching into every town and community across the country.
The Children’s Commissioner has been sounding the alarm for several years now. She found that 2.3 million children are living with risk because of their vulnerable backgrounds, and as many as 1.6 million of those children have patchy or no statutory support whatsoever. After a decade in which the safety net that vulnerable children rely on—Sure Start, family support services, speech and language therapy, behavioural support, social services and probation—has been picked away, it is becoming far too easy for the most vulnerable to be preyed upon by serious organised criminals.
It is thoroughly unacceptable that the police are not recognising or evaluating risks to children well enough, as the report has found. Children living in care are not being properly protected. Schools are becoming too eager to expel and off roll. Pupil referral units are becoming recruiting grounds for vicious criminals. The total lack of both mental health and residential care beds has led to too many children being inappropriately detained or being ferried around the country in the backs of police cars. This is a whole-system failure, and the consequences for children and families are stark.
Over £880 million has already been lost from children’s and youth services since 2010. The flagship early intervention fund announced by the former Home Secretary  last spring was supposed to make funding available for critical support to steer young people away from serious violence, but answers to parliamentary questions have revealed that more than 60% of bids from police and crime commissioners for these projects, including 24 in London alone and one to tackle the vicious exploitation known as county lines, have been rejected. The former Home Secretary had previously promised to do everything in his power to tackle county lines exploitation and the vulnerable children swept up in it, but he then quietly rejected a £1.3 million bid from West Mercia, Staffordshire and Warwickshire to fund a project designed to tackle exactly that. In total, the Government are funding only 29 diversion projects nationwide.
If this report is not the catalyst for the Government to get serious, nothing will be. We know from the Prime Minister’s short time in office that he goes missing when things get tough and there are difficult questions to be answered. When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable children, we simply cannot afford for him to do so again.
Turning specifically to the report’s findings, the Minister knows as well as I do that data sharing comes up repeatedly in serious case reviews and in response to child protection. Despite specific amendments to the Data Protection Act 2018 that allow the sharing of data for safeguarding purposes, it remains an issue. What more can we do to break down the organisational and cultural silos that are preventing data sharing and stopping organisations working together to protect children?
With police forces and services facing unsustainable demand, what resources will the Government put in place to tackle that need and properly fund local authority children’s services after £880 million was taken from their budgets? Given that the report praises the approach in Wales to adverse childhood experiences and the collaboration of the four forces there with local services to provide targeted early support, what plans do the Government have to replicate such an approach in England? We have consistently said that implementing a public health approach to meeting that crisis will require leadership from the Prime Minister down. That can be done, but it requires political will to bring together and co-ordinate the agencies, Departments and police forces that can make a difference in identifying and protecting children earlier. Clearly that is happening in some local authority and force areas, but it is far too inconsistent, so will the Prime Minister now convene a taskforce, led from central Government and chaired by him, to bring together the services and identify the support that will have a tangible effect and ensure that the national strategy on child abuse is led from the heart of No. 10?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. She knows, I hope, about the early intervention work that we have been investing in. There is enormous agreement across the House and in all the agencies we work with—those that work on the frontline with young people who are at risk of serious violence or sexual exploitation or both, or other forms of risk—that early intervention is absolutely key to this, because we want to prevent harm in the first place.
Over the past few years, we have invested £22 million in the early intervention youth fund, which is supporting 40 projects endorsed by police and crime commissioners  across England and Wales. The projects include work with children and young people at risk of criminal involvement, and organisations safeguarding those at risk of gang exploitation and county lines, or those who have already offended to help divert them into positive life chances. At least 60,000 children and young people will be reached through the fund by the end of March.
The £200 million youth endowment fund is targeted at funding and developing early intervention projects over 10 years, and it undertook its first grant round last year. Twenty-three successful applicants were identified, and the interventions range from intensive family therapy to street-based and school mentoring programmes. The 23 projects are located across England and Wales and will share £17.1 million over two years, and of course the fund has a further eight years to go.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned the adverse childhood experiences work in Wales. The Home Office helped to fund that work, because we want to test and pilot to see what works, so that other agencies and local authorities can learn from best practice.
The hon. Lady rightly raised data sharing. All of us involved in the arena of preventing and trying to prevent child exploitation will agree with me when I say that if I had a pound for every time people talked to me about collaboration and data sharing, believe you me we would be able to spend even more money than we already are on intervention projects. She rightly and kindly referenced the fact that we included a specific section in the 2018 Act to give professionals the certainty that if they are sharing information for the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable people, they are perfectly entitled to do so and, indeed, should do so. We are beginning to see culture changes in some of the agencies we are working with, but she is right that far more needs to be done. Reports such as this one will hopefully drive that change.
The hon. Lady knows that we are helping to invest in violence reduction units in police forces across the country. That will also encourage the use of data sharing, and the forthcoming serious violence Bill will put in statute the duty of various agencies to work collaboratively to prevent serious violence. I have always been clear that that will have a trickle-down effect on other types of criminality, violence and sexual violence.
In conclusion, the report sets out some real challenges for policing, as we have said, but it also shows that there have been improvements. I am keen to emphasise that, so that we have a fair debate about the issues that have been raised.

Tim Loughton: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome these inspections, but the results are alarming. According to the NSPCC, a child is abused in this country every seven minutes. The report includes comments such as
“The police do not recognise or evaluate risk to children well enough… the police often carry out more complex investigations badly… Too often, the focus is on the incident, missing the bigger picture.”
This is not about better police investigation; this is about a change of mindset. The situation is particularly disappointing given the first comprehensive child sexual exploitation action plan was launched back in 2011.  What the Minister is proposing is not the first plan, and we also had the recent Operation Augusta review into the failings of Greater Manchester Police.
When the report refers to the
“opportunity to use new statutory local safeguarding arrangements”
as a successor to local safeguarding children’s boards, what opportunities does she think the police will take?
Finally, the primary recommendation of the report is that the Home Office should consider
“the development of a new national early help and prevention strategy”
but that was key a recommendation of the Munro review, which I commissioned in 2011. Why is that still just a recommendation?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, and I know he has great expertise and interest in this area. With this early intervention we are not just setting strategies but implementing work across the country through the targeted funds we have set up, including the youth endowment fund, which is deliberately designed to take place over a 10-year period so that the investment rolls through various spending reviews. It has been protected so that we can invest to learn and discover which projects work and which do not. It is fair to say that there have previously been misunderstandings about what works, and we want to learn more so that local authorities and other commissioners invest wisely.
I take my hon. Friend’s point and thank him for his information about an earlier iteration of the child sexual abuse strategy. We are looking across all the typologies of child sexual abuse. There are many typologies, particularly nowadays, sadly, with the prevalence of online abuse and exploitation, which I am afraid can take place with just an ordinary mobile phone and can have devastating consequences for the child who is targeted, not just in the immediate circumstances of the photo or video being taken but, of course, for many years thereafter, as we are discovering through our work with WePROTECT.
I am very conscious of my hon. Friend’s observations, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them further, because we want to get this right.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has referred to the stronger multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements that were introduced in September 2019. She says it is recognised that they are a key opportunity to deliver the kind of systemic change we need to see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has said that police forces are not active enough. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am concerned about children’s services in Hull. Humberside police is responsible for ensuring the safeguarding of children in Hull, so what should I ask its chief officers to deliver to make sure children are kept safe?

Victoria Atkins: The police and crime commissioner obviously sets the priorities for the force, so I would go to them before going to the chief constable. Police and crime commissioners play a vital role in commissioning local services, and we have seen some excellent  commissioning decisions in relation to exploitation more widely than simply sexual exploitation and, of course, in their work to hold the police to account on this issue.
The hon. Lady should ask the chief constable whether he or she has confidence that the force is working in accordance with the vulnerability knowledge and practice programme that we have funded to enable policing best practice to develop in response to vulnerability. Vulnerability is key to many of the crime types we see nowadays, and it should be at the front of every chief constable’s mind.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We have a very well subscribed debate after this. I would like to finish this statement by 1.20 pm, so I ask for brief questions and replies, please.

Jane Hunt: Does the Minister agree that tackling child exploitation, whether it happened yesterday or 20 years ago and wherever the crime took place, is a vital aspect of our civil and decent society?

Victoria Atkins: Of course I agree, and my hon. Friend will know about the work of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse on historical allegations of institutional abuse and, indeed, about the work of police forces up and down the country to investigate not just current allegations but historical allegations, too.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Minister for her statement. One of the most challenging aspects of child sexual exploitation is that vulnerable victims find it very difficult to work with the police. All too often, the police attitude towards these vulnerable children is that they brought it on themselves or even that they consented to the crimes against them. What is she doing to challenge those attitudes and to ensure that, no matter how vulnerable the child or what their background, they are taken seriously and that these crimes are prosecuted?

Victoria Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who does so much to represent the interests of her constituents in this regard. Some of the reports we have seen from, say, Operation Augusta—there are other examples—have been absolutely shocking in the allegations of what police officers may or may not have said to young people reporting very serious crimes. Let me be clear at the Dispatch Box that no child should be subjected to sexual exploitation or abuse. No child should be dismissed in the way they sadly have been historically. We should all see what we can do, not just as constituency MPs but as friends, neighbours and family members, to ensure every child feels safe to report incidents of abuse and that those reports are taken seriously and are listened to.

Katherine Fletcher: Along with other colleagues, I was with the Children’s Commissioner yesterday at the early years advisory board. What repeatedly came up was the importance of cohesion in our response during those early stages. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure the Home Office works with other Departments to have a joined-up response?

Victoria Atkins: The Home Office works with other Departments because these crimes draw on so many facets of public life. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are leading from the very top with their cross-Whitehall taskforce, and getting agencies across the country to work together will be critical to these considerations.

David Simmonds: Will the Minister commit to a discussion with local authorities about their reflections on the implementation of the Wood review? She mentioned in her statement that the review is strengthening local accountability arrangements. In particular, will she have discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education about how schools, which are often a crucial part of effective safeguarding but are currently completely absent from these arrangements, can be brought into an element of rigorous local accountability?

Victoria Atkins: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about schools and accountability. As part of the taskforce led by the Prime Minister, we will be looking at greater departmental working across Whitehall. My expectation is that local government will play its role in all our work to tackle these abuses. With his expertise, I am, of course, very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can take this further.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome the £30 million funding boost that the Home Secretary has delivered to protect children from abuse online and to track down offenders. Will my hon. Friend outline how this money will help to better protect children from these terrible crimes?

Victoria Atkins: This is an emerging crime type. The evilness of the people who conduct abuse online is truly shocking to behold. I recently visited the CAID operation centre, and I pay tribute to the officers who work extremely hard in, frankly, pretty harrowing circumstances —I saw some of the images they have to sort and classify. We have invested this extra money to help officers digitally and technologically, because there is so much that the development of artificial intelligence and   other things can do in this space to help ensure that we get the perpetrators of these terrible crimes and also protect and safeguard victims.

Greg Smith: The Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) is helpful.
I was disturbed to learn from the Internet Watch Foundation a couple of weeks ago that online child sexual exploitation is increasing internationally, particularly in certain countries. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what the Government are doing with countries around the world to ensure we are tackling this globally?

Victoria Atkins: That is an area in which this country genuinely leads the world. Under Prime Minister David Cameron, we set up an organisation called the WePROTECT Global Alliance. It draws countries together so that we can act internationally, because perpetrators often film the images in one country and it is open to people throughout the world then to see whether they have access to that website, database or WhatsApp group. Through WePROTECT, we are working with countries, getting them to sign up to the principles—some of these countries perhaps do not have the same legislation that we have in place—and encouraging best practice, so that we can help protect children in not only this country, but across the world.

Jo Gideon: I welcome the investment in the county lines co-ordination centre, but I am concerned that looked-after children can be in facilities that are not registered and not regulated. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that our looked-after children are really looked after.

Victoria Atkins: I very much agree on that. My hon. Friend has identified a salient point about how these manipulative perpetrators target children precisely because of their vulnerability in their family or other circumstances. That is one reason why we have launched the trusted relationships fund, which I believe is now in its second year. It has been set up to help children who have been let down by almost every adult in their life. It helps these children to build a trusted relationship with an adult, be they a social worker, a youth worker or somebody different. It helps those children have an adult they can trust and confide in.

Point of Order

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic and fantastic ruling, judging that the Government’s Heathrow expansion decision was unlawful because it did not take account of the Government’s legally binding commitments on climate change. The Secretary of State for Transport has tweeted that the Government “won’t appeal” against the ruling, but the Government’s transport policy is now in confusion and chaos, along with their climate change policy. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, through the Chair, use your good offices to ask the Government to make a statement to this House as soon as possible on how they take this decision forward? We hope that the Government will confirm that the expansion of Heathrow has now been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which, as I am sure he realises, is not a point of order for the Chair. I can inform him that the Leader of the House was asked about this issue during the business statement earlier, and I believe I am right in saying that he said that a written ministerial statement was going to be issued. In the meantime, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s request for an oral statement and he will, no doubt, be pursuing this in the ways with which he is well acquainted.

Welsh Affairs

Simon Hart: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Let me welcome everybody to this St David’s Day debate, where we have some veterans and some first-timers. I have to apologise in advance, because I need to leave to entertain some visitors from Wales in No.10 during the course of this debate, so if I slip away, there is a good reason for my doing so. [Interruption.] I apologise to Opposition Members who have not received their invitation quite yet.
This is a fantastic opportunity to champion Wales at a national level, and to highlight the potential and resilience of our constituencies. I wanted to start by discussing resilience, because there has been no greater example of it than the response to the recent flooding events in Wales and further afield. I have visited communities in Carmarthen and Pontypridd, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies,) has been around and about in the Monmouthshire area, where the Rivers Wye and Usk have caused such devastation. We have spoken to emergency services, agencies, MPs, AMs, local authorities and the Welsh Government on numerous occasions. It is encouraging to see that when things such as this really matter, there is a such a widespread degree of co-operation between those agencies.

Mark Tami: rose—

Simon Hart: I am not going to take every intervention, but, in the spirit of collaboration, I will give way on this occasion.

Mark Tami: The Secretary of State has told us where he has been, but does he know when the Prime Minister has been to Wales or whether he is intending to go there?

Simon Hart: I am surprisingly grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to say that the Under-Secretary will wave a letter from the head of his local authority that asked us specifically not to interfere and get under the feet of emergency services by going to these areas before the moment was right. I have spoken to a number of local authorities and they echoed that view, so rather than make this a political stunt, we let the experts get on with what they wanted and needed to get on and do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Simon Hart: I will continue, if I may. The most important people we have spoken to during this incident have been the families and businesses affected. This has been horrendous for them and it remains so, because these weather patterns have not completely worked their way through.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Simon Hart: I will of course give way to my neighbour.

Jonathan Edwards: The Secretary of State will know that Carmarthenshire has a history of flooding. There were big floods there about a year ago, and even now some of the families and businesses affected are still recovering. One big issue is that they cannot get insurance after having been flooded. There is a huge market failure in that insurance market and public intervention will be needed. Will he press his colleagues in the UK Government to come up with a UK Government insurance scheme to support families who cannot get insurance because of flooding?

Simon Hart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this issue has come up a number of times in the decade in which we have been in this House. The answer to his question is yes, but it is never as simple as it seems. All sorts of contributory factors are involved, with planning being one, but I assure him that we will take that issue seriously and look into it.
I had wanted to mention financial assistance, because it was raised during yesterday’s Welsh questions and Prime Minister’s questions. It is an important moment to restate what the Prime Minister said yesterday about money being “passported through” in relation to this. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not here, but if he were, he would talk about this as being a Union issue, as he did yesterday. We agree that it is a Union issue, which is why we are working so closely with the Welsh Government to make sure that we know precisely what they need and when they need it, while not interfering with the devolution settlement.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Bearing in mind that the Rivers Severn and Wye have an impact on communities in England, if the Welsh Government were to approach the UK Government for additional support specifically to address that flooding, how would the Secretary of State respond?

Simon Hart: We will respond in the way we always do to Welsh Government requests for assistance, in whatever form it might be requested, by taking it extremely seriously and respecting the views that they express. However, in the two meetings I have had with the First Minister so far, it is clear—this is no criticism of him—that we are a long way off being able to measure precisely what that request might consist of. When it comes, we will take it seriously.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Simon Hart: Not at the moment, thank you. It is nothing personal, obviously.
At this time, I just want to mention the potential for landslides, which, obviously, has caused almost as much concern as some of the flooding risk. In the past few days, that issue has become particularly significant, and I wanted to update colleagues by saying that I have met the First Minister to discuss it. We have brought all the relevant stakeholders together, either by way of conference call or in person on Monday this week. Just so that those co-signatories know, I should say that we have also received a letter from the hon. Member for Rhondda which asks some of the questions that I hope to be able to answer now.
The First Minister and I have asked for an up-to-date database of the sites involved—it may surprise some to learn that no such thorough document exists—as we  want to know precisely who owns them. We have asked for a risk assessment to be undertaken as a matter of urgency as to the integrity of these sites and what exactly the legal liabilities are and where they lie. We have also asked for an outline of a potential timescale and cost for addressing problems associated with these sites, bearing in mind that it is difficult to get on to them at the moment because of the weather conditions that caused the problems in the first place. I also assure colleagues in the House that we will update them just as soon as we have information that we think is viable and useful.

Chris Elmore: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he knows that this issue is of huge concern to those of us who represent Rhondda Cynon Taf constituencies, as I do. May I press him a little? He spoke about the liabilities, but will he assure me and other Members that no matter where responsibility lies, the UK Government will provide funding to ensure that the coal slips are safe? He will agree that we do not want a repeat of what has happened in the past, when Governments have argued over maintenance, controls and safety, and we have had situations like Aberfan.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My referencing liability was not to pre-warn him that we will somehow try to excuse ourselves from liability; it is just so that we understand exactly what the legal position is regarding ownership, because there may be things such as access issues, which we need to understand. These things are always frustratingly complicated.
I wish to use this opportunity to be positive about Wales, because there is much to be positive about. This discussion is about opportunities, jobs, growth, culture and identity—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Simon Hart: It will also be about an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to intervene—in a minute, but not yet. I have been waiting 10 years for the opportunity to be able to turn the hon. Gentleman down. I am not going to lose out on that.
In Wales, there are now 144,000 more people in work than there were in 2010 and 90,000 fewer workless households than there were in 2010. Before anybody sticks up their hand and says, “Ah, but they’re not real jobs,” or, “Ah, but they’re zero-hours contracts,” even if we take the most pessimistic view of those figures, it is still a remarkable testament, not necessarily to the Welsh Government or even the UK Government, but to the businesses and individuals in Wales and their resilience in being able to create and sustain that positive economic picture.
Since 2010, GDP per head in Wales has grown by more than the UK average, and in the past year alone 51 foreign investment projects have come our way, creating 1,700 jobs. We have institutions such as INEOS Automotive in Bridgend; Admiral and GoCompare; Airbus and Toyota in Deeside; Aston Martin in St Athan; Bluestone and Valero down in my part of the world, in west Wales; Tata, Celsa and Liberty Steel; numerous successful holiday and leisure small and medium-sized enterprises around the coast; agri-tech in Aberystwyth; a cyber-security hub in Newport; Zip World in north  Wales; and a growing renewables hub in the Milford Haven waterway. I know that every single colleague present will have a fantastic example of people who have created interesting, diverse and profitable businesses.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State mentions many companies, including some in my constituency. It is crucial that through a great education system we equip the younger generation to prepare for the opportunities in those companies, so will he join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on the investment that they have put into my constituency? We have new schools in the east of Cardiff and in Penarth, and a new further education college—Cardiff and Vale College—and we have seen the improvement of a whole series of educational facilities at every level.

Simon Hart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I will always congratulate any Government of any colour if they do the right thing by jobs and growth.
On renewables, which I have touched on, Wales’s electricity is already 50% powered by clean energy, and I am committed, as I know colleagues are, to seeing that figure rise. This is of course the Prime Minister’s year of climate action, building up to COP26, and Wales has a role to play in that, just as it does in a low-carbon economy.

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State is making an important point about Wales’s potential contribution towards meeting renewable energy targets. Does he agree that one of the big constraints we face in Wales is grid capacity? I know that he has not been long in the job, but has he had a chance to have any discussions with Western Power or National Grid, for example, about how we can enhance grid capacity so that more renewables projects can be taken forward?

Simon Hart: The answer is a partial yes. As my right hon. Friend knows, businesses in the Carmarthenshire element of my constituency in particular are constrained by grid capacity. In my capacity as an MP, my answer is yes; in my capacity as Secretary of State, my answer is that it is on the to-do list. It is an urgent issue that colleagues from Plaid Cymru raised with me towards the back end of last year.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of clean energy in Wales; would he be willing to meet me and other colleagues, together with the proposed developers of the Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon, and preferably with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, to discuss the possibility of developing that very important contributor to clean energy in Wales?

Simon Hart: My right hon. Friend is right, and yes I would of course love to do that. There is a feeling in some quarters that perhaps we have turned our back on tidal lagoon energy; no, we have not. On anything like that project, which has good potential and offers value for money for taxpayers, I will of course meet my right hon. Friend and any other colleagues who may have similarly encouraging projects to promote.
This is not all about the traditional industries that I have already listed; it is also about innovative business: artificial intelligence, virtual reality, compound semiconductors, cyber-security, FinTech, InsureTech—lots of stuff with tech in the name—and many more cutting-edge new industries dotted around, not necessarily in the centres of Wales where people would expect to find them. These businesses offer long-term, well-paid, skilful, green jobs and keep home-grown talent in Wales.

Geraint Davies: The Secretary of State has mentioned the impact on Wales of climate change in terms of flooding, and he is now mentioning the opportunities; will he reconfirm that he is looking again with fresh eyes at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, including at its financial structure and its cost relative to the price of future energy, which will go up? We cannot use all the coal and oil, because we will all burn up. It would be a pathfinder for new opportunities for export growth, not just in Wales but throughout the UK.

Simon Hart: In answering that, I want to avoid giving the hon. Gentleman the impression that we are just going to dust off the original tidal lagoon proposal, because that would possibly build up false hope. I can say that tidal lagoons as a concept were and remain something of significant potential for Wales and the rest of the UK, but any project obviously has to meet the right value-for-money criteria.
We have talked about the traditional industries; Wales also has a fantastically expanding creative industry offer. Who would have thought it? Not many people know—apart from those in this Chamber, obviously—about “Doctor Who”, “Hinterland”, “Keeping Faith”, “Casualty”, “Gavin & Stacey” and, of course “Sex Education”, which is filmed in my ministerial colleague’s—

Geraint Davies: House. [Laughter.]

Simon Hart: In the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

Craig Williams: I pay tribute to that programme, but apart from the brief sight of a Welsh flag, one would not know that it is filmed in Wales. We need to look at Netflix and the new creative industries and think about reminding people that we have these great facilities.

Simon Hart: Absolutely. My hon. Friend should raise that question with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, because it would seem to me to be the subject of an inquiry that that Committee might enjoy.
On the subject of culture, we have a fantastic, rich and vibrant heritage. The fact that we have more than 600 castles—more per square mile than any other part of the world—is a source of great pride. We have world-class museums, we have galleries, and even the slate landscape of north Wales has been nominated for UNESCO world heritage status.
In sport, we have won a grand slam since the previous St David’s Day debate. I will not make any further predictions on that score. In Tenby in west Wales we host Ironman Wales, the only competition in Wales that attracts more than 2,000 competitors from 35 countries. Last year, Loren Dykes of the Welsh national women’s football team was honoured with her MBE, and Wales has again qualified for the Euros.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming to the House a very good friend of mine, Lowri Morgan, a woman I used to play rugby with back in the day, who is renowned for her ultra-marathons and adventurism? She is here to join the Secretary of State in Downing Street this afternoon. I also welcome her father, Dr Morgan, who is also my constituent.

Carolyn Harris: She wants us to come.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Lowri would love us to be there this afternoon. I had to explain the order of events; unfortunately we will not be able to join the Secretary of State. Sport is a massive industry in Wales—it is very important and very close to our hearts. It is important that we raise the profile and importance of sport for everyone, especially women.

Simon Hart: I very much look forward to meeting Lowri in No. 10. We will, of course, have a drink together and think of you all in here as we do.
Let me return briefly to our economic prospects. No St David’s Day debate, certainly in recent years, would be complete without mention of our departure from the EU, which was voted for in Wales by a margin of 5%. The result of the election towards the end of last year confirms the Union ambitions and Union values of our residents.
That leads me neatly to the shared prosperity fund, which is the subject of much discussion in this House and elsewhere—what it means, where it is going, what it will include, who will be responsible for it and so on. I have always said, and I said it on the day I was appointed, that this is a nice problem to have—large sums of money to be distributed by politicians elected in Wales by Wales for the first time in nearly 50 years. The shared prosperity fund for me, and I am sure this view is shared by the Welsh Government, too, is about jobs and growth. It is about priorities that benefit everybody across the country, not just specific parts of it. It is not about vanity projects and ideas that may sound good and even look good, but that do not deliver on those two core objectives.
One of the reasons why the EU referendum vote went the way it did, why there was such a heated debate about it, why there was such frustration sometimes about the knowledge that there were large sums of money that never quite reached the places that they were meant to go, is because there are examples—admittedly not many—such as the funicular, a £2.5 million EU-funded project in Ebbw Vale. It broke down more than 250 times between June 2015 and November 2017, and it cost Blaenau Gwent Council £52,000 a year. I have not been aware at any time in recent years of residents of Wales campaigning for more of that kind of thing. Techniums are another example. I have one in my constituency. The 10 innovation centres, costing £38 million of EU funds, failed to meet job targets, and six centres closed after nine years. They were even described by the Lib Dems as a white elephant.

Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hart: No, no, hold tight. I liked the idea of a £20,000 dragon statue in Ebbw Vale, but the test of these things must be how they have contributed positively to jobs and growth. My challenge to the Welsh Government is for the UK and Welsh Governments to work collaboratively on the shared prosperity fund to make sure that those objectives are met and are driven by local demand.

Wayne David: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It really is a travesty for him to attempt to depict European funding in this way. European funding has been a huge boost to the Welsh economy. We need only look at road infrastructure, the colleges, the voluntary sector that has benefited and the training that we have put in place. All those things are very positive, but what he has presented is a gross caricature of reality.

Simon Hart: It is in fact quite the opposite. I suspect that what I have done is cause a certain amount of embarrassment. We all know and understand that the funding does not always work in the way that it should. I made it absolutely clear that the examples I gave are the exceptions, not the rule. My point is very clear. There should be a collaborative approach by the Welsh and UK Governments to prioritise jobs and growth. If the Welsh Government or Welsh Labour cannot live with that, that is their problem, not mine.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Simon Hart: I will give way once more, to the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being generous—but also uncharitable. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made his point; I can point to examples in my constituency. In Butetown, EU funding went to the community centre, the youth pavilion, and regeneration in one of the most deprived areas in Wales. The Government have not given answers as to where funding will come from to ensure that the so-called levelling up agenda can be delivered. They need to answer those questions.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those questions will be answered. Whether they are answered now or at a future stage is a matter for him to judge. I am conscious that I have been super generous with interventions, and that I must now get on with my few remaining comments.
As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, levelling up and strengthening the Union are our buzzwords. That means road, rail, air, and digital infrastructure improvements. It means mobile phone coverage in the most hard-to-reach places and cross-border connectivity. If we want an argument in this place, let us have one about the M4 relief road. Let us hear from Opposition colleagues about what pressure they are putting on the Welsh Government to remove that blockage and unleash economic potential throughout south and west Wales. Not a single business from the west coast of Pembrokeshire to the Severn Bridge does not believe that the project is a good idea. The blockage appears to come from the First Minister’s Office, so if colleagues share our ambition  for the project, let us hear from them. I will take any intervention from the Opposition confirming their enthusiasm for that improvement. [Interruption.] Okay, perhaps not.
We also want a more reliable rail service and charging points for electric vehicles. For those who say, “What has HS2 ever done for us?”, I would say this—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Simon Hart: No, I will not give way, because I must get on. I was talking about the benefits of HS2. Whether it is by direct connection to a new form of rail infrastructure, the like of which has not been seen since Victorian times, or whether it is by being able to tap into the supply chain opportunities, HS2 benefits not just those on the route that it will follow, or in the cities that it will join. It will help link up the UK, which will be good for the economic prospects of Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Simon Hart: No, I will not give way. My mood has changed. I am no longer co-operative and collaborative.
On defence, we have, in our ministerial team, two people who have worn a military uniform—that of the Royal Artillery in the case of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and that of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in my case. We have an instinctive love, affection and respect for the defence industry, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and we want to see more of them in Wales. We want to ensure that their veterans’ railcard is delivered in exactly the same way by the Welsh Government as it will be by the UK Government in November, and we want to preserve and enhance the Ministry of Defence footprint in Wales.
Let me turn to the question of steel, which is of huge significance to a number of constituencies, including mine. I reassure the House that the UK Government recognise not only the economic value of steel, but its social and cultural importance in Wales. We are working with steel companies to find out, and be absolutely clear in our minds about, what they see as a sustainable steel industry, and what UK and Welsh Government support they need to be able to develop that. I will be at Tata Steel Port Talbot tomorrow. I hope to meet the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) there to discuss these issues further.
I want to end on a cultural matter to do with the Welsh language. I am very proud of the fact that S4C moved its headquarters from Cardiff to Carmarthen. It is, of course, the only Welsh language broadcaster. As somebody who has, as the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows, a limited grasp of the Welsh language—she would argue that I had a limited grasp of any language—this is of real significance. It is about far more than viewing figures. I am anxious to make sure that the language is seen as approachable, fun, and significant. The moment it becomes politicised, it turns off people who might be taking their first steps with the language—whether they are already residents  of Wales, or are moving to Wales, perhaps for work. The vibrancy of the language and its future are important.
The Welsh Government ambition, which I fully support, is to have 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. That will be achieved only if that is seen as something that we can aspire to achieve without fear of political retribution if we somehow fall short. Inserting the odd word of Welsh into a speech or article does not do the trick. It is a lazy way of attempting to do our duty by the Welsh language. We have to go further than that, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say more about that later.
On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is time for a gwin coch mawr over in No. 10. Those are the three words of Welsh that I have learned and have carried me through the most difficult situations over the past 10 years. This is a great occasion. It is a brilliant opportunity for us to speak about the positives of Wales. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions.

Christina Rees: I thank the Government for bringing forward this debate on Welsh affairs. Of course, the calendar dictates that we are unable to hold the debate on St David’s Day, as 1 March falls on a Sunday this year. Nevertheless, the debate remains a firm fixture in our parliamentary business, providing a great opportunity to discuss the issues, challenges and priorities that matter to Wales.
I also thank the Government for granting the debate in Government time, which has not happened for many years; not, I think, since the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) became Secretary of State—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would be able to correct me on that, were he here, as his knowledge of the House is far better than mine. Certainly, since I have been taking part in St David’s Day debates, they have been Backbench Business debates.
Yesterday I bumped into my good friend Albert Owen, the former Member for Ynys Môn. We were reminiscing about Welsh affairs debates, among other things. Seeing Albert reminded me just how much I miss him, Ian Lucas, David Hanson, Susan Elan Jones, Owen Smith, Madeleine Moon, Anne Clwyd and, last but not least, my former shadow ministerial colleague, Chris Ruane. Those dedicated Welsh MPs have given years of service to the people of Wales, and their work should be celebrated for all that is good about being a Welsh Labour MP. We have two great new Labour MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who are already making their presence felt and will be fantastic additions to our Labour Team Wales.
Not many hon. Members know this, but in my constituency of Neath we celebrate not only St David’s Day, when the children dress up in Welsh costumes to celebrate our Welsh culture, but St Patrick’s Day. Patrick was born in Banwen, at the top of the Dulais valley, but he was kidnapped as a child and taken to Ireland. Every year we hold a fantastic celebration at a stone we have erected to his memory in Banwen. Schoolchildren, residents and special guests come along to hear the great Roy Noble giving one of his memorable speeches about St Patrick. We are indebted to the famous local historian George Brinley Evans, now 93, who researched this phenomenon  and was the leading protagonist in establishing the St Patrick stone and the annual event. Please join us. We have a leprechaun who comes all the way from Ireland to take part too. I look forward to seeing Members there on 17 March.
It is regrettable that I must begin my proper address in sombre tones, as we reflect on the impact that recent events have had on our great nation. Two storms and unprecedented flooding have taken their toll on communities across Wales, including, but not limited to, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Llanwrst, Monmouth and parts of my Neath constituency. From severe damage to bridges and iconic landmarks, such as the national lido of Wales, to the destruction of the entire contents of family homes, these floods will cost Wales dearly.
The First Minster, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the Prince of Wales have visited households and communities right across the country, but alas the Prime Minster could not find the time to visit just one of the flood-damaged areas of the UK. He has said many times that he would not “die in a ditch”, but perhaps he was missing in action because he fell into the moat surrounding his holiday castle, or perhaps he could not find his wellies.
The community spirit and response in our devastated Welsh communities has shown the world the best of Wales: compassion, kindness, humour and solidarity have shone through the contribution of volunteers, emergency services, council workers, welfare halls, miners’ institutes, Royal British Legion branches, rugby clubs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many more.

Craig Williams: The hon. Lady missed that the source of the Severn is in Montgomeryshire, in mid-Wales. Although I will not politicise this or make tribal political points about missing one of the biggest floods in Wales, will she reflect on the fact that we have to work together to ensure that people recover as soon as possible from this tragedy, and that does not include cheap political shots of the sort she has made thus far?

Christina Rees: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We always work together, but the Prime Minister is the leader, so he should have visited the areas affected.
Many local authorities are pulling together to support those who are most severely impacted by the floods, working in the most demanding of circumstances to get the quickest possible support to those in need. However, the UK Government must now step up and recognise the disproportionate and intense impact that the floods have had on Wales. We need additional funding for Wales. We need protection for emergency household payments. We need immediate help for those who do not have insurance. We need support for those who have lost their jobs and livelihoods.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend is probably aware that more severe weather conditions are expected over the coming seven to 10 days, so is she as concerned as I am about the saturation of coal tips and the like? We need an urgent assessment of whether there is an imminent risk to villages and hamlets in the valleys, which are susceptible to flash-flooding and slides, because of the topography of the valleys and the increased risk from  climate change. We need urgent action, immediate help and long-term solutions; we cannot just wait for a report to come back.

Christina Rees: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I have visited homes that have been flooded or affected by landslips over the past few weeks, it has broken my heart. People who do not have insurance have had their homes destroyed yet again. Yes, we need action, and we need it now, because the weather forecast is definitely not favourable for the next few weeks.
A quarter of all homes and businesses were flooded in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone, with a potential bill of £30 million—twice the council’s annual capital budget. I must commend the work of the Rhondda Cynon Taf MPs and AMs and the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, Andrew Morgan, who is also leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, which has done some fantastic work.
There is so much to celebrate about our great nation, some of which I will discuss in a moment, but there are also a great many challenges and a level of uncertainty in our communities, against the backdrop of Brexit and the negative effects of austerity on so many Welsh communities and families.
These challenging times make it more important than ever to have a strong Welsh Labour team of MPs here in Westminster, working with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. It remains a huge privilege to serve as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), our Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and our wonderful Welsh Labour MPs.
This Tory UK Government have continually failed Wales, and unfortunately the Wales Office continues to fail to stand up for the people of Wales. We were promised the electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea, but the UK Government changed their mind. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon was recommended by this Government’s own inquiry, but they ignored it, and Wylfa Newydd has been paused. The people of Wales hear loud and clear the UK Government’s promises to our country, and the people will hold them to account for their failure to deliver. We demand more, and we demand better.
The UK Government must recognise the folly of continuing to frustrate efforts to launch a major new domestic market for Welsh steel. The pathfinder tidal lagoon in Swansea bay requires around 100,000 tonnes of steel, much of which could be sourced in Wales, against a very clear commitment from the investors and businesses involved to buy Welsh. The past 12 months have seen the loss of hundreds of jobs in the steel industry, in Tata’s Orb steelworks in Newport and in Liberty Steel in sites in south Yorkshire and south Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their tireless campaigning on behalf of our steelworkers.
Wales needs investment, as the UK as a whole needs investment, and the people of Wales will judge this Government harshly if they continue to fail to deliver it. Opposition Members will continue to speak up for Wales—for Welsh families, communities and businesses—  and for the devolution settlement itself. It is not for any UK Government unilaterally to rewrite the rules of devolution by attempting to power-grab and centralise functions set out in law and agreed through the ballot box, using Brexit as a cover for those actions. Despite what the Secretary of State has said about the UK shared prosperity fund, it is still a mystery to me. We continue to wait and wait for the much anticipated consultation, and for any details whatever on how the fund will be implemented. It must respect devolution and be overseen by the Welsh Government, and we must not see a penny less or a power lost. I commend the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
The people of Wales have a right to see a UK Government acting in their best interests, protecting their jobs and investing in the public services they rely on and the infrastructure we desperately need to secure Wales’s future. Despite a decade of austerity and a 7% real-terms cut to funding per head of the population, the Welsh Government have continued to lead the way in delivering landmark legislation and progressive policy making. The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 and the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016 are groundbreaking examples of a modern legislature creating laws that make a difference for the people of the nation.
The Welsh Government have also introduced policies such as free bus travel for the over-60s, free swimming for children and older people, free school breakfasts, free prescriptions and free hospital parking, as well as being the first nation of the UK to introduce the 5p carrier bag charge. They have banned smoking in cars carrying children, and Wales has the third highest recycling rate in the world. That is just a brief glimpse of what has been delivered during the past decade. The achievements of the Welsh Government are, quite honestly, nothing short of remarkable.

Craig Williams: On that point, will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

Christina Rees: For the hon. Member, of course.

Craig Williams: I could not resist intervening at this particular moment—I rather thought it was 1 April, not St David’s Day. Will the hon. Member comment on the report of the Wales Audit Office that pointed out the several hundred million-pound overspend on the heads of the valleys road and other significant infrastructure projects over the decade that the hon. Member said was so successful?

Christina Rees: As the hon. Gentleman knows, European funding produced the heads of the valley road.

Craig Williams: So it’s okay to waste it?

Christina Rees: Pardon me?

Robin John Millar: So it’s okay to waste it?

Christina Rees: No, of course —that road is going ahead. It is only the UK Government who have prevented it from going ahead faster. I do not know where I am now; the hon. Members have completely lost me. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. We must not have heckling—well, not much—of the shadow Secretary of State.

Christina Rees: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to finish now, because I am sure that lots of other Members want to speak.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Member take a friendly intervention before she moves on?

Christina Rees: I was getting to the good bit, but I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

Jonathan Edwards: I am sure the hon. Member will also have some concern about the negotiating mandate set out today by the British Government in relation to the second phase of Brexit and the trade negotiations. Indeed, the Welsh Government have issued a stern statement indicating that they were not consulted at all about the mandate. I fear that the best we can hope for is a bare-bones free trade agreement. The Welsh economy will be more exposed because of our reliance on exports into the single market. What does the hon. Member think the Welsh Government should do now, since the British Government clearly are not taking any notice of Wales’s position?

Christina Rees: The hon. Member makes some very good points. It has been a concern of mine for a long time that the Welsh Government have not been involved in the negotiations. They have to be involved; this is the future of Wales that we are talking about. I am really disappointed that they have not been involved to the extent that they should have been.
Now I come to the good bit. The House will know how passionate I am about sport. Wales is a sporting nation. When Wales wins the people of Wales are very happy. When we lose it is the end of the world. I went to the Wales versus Italy match, which was a great result, as the House knows—I don’t think I want to talk about the other matches, so I will move swiftly on.
My constituency of Neath has a proud sporting history. The Welsh Rugby Union was created in the Castle Hotel in Neath. The best player in the world, Gareth Edwards, was born and bred in Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Dan Biggar’s family was born and bred in the Dulais valley, where I live, as was Dennis Gethin, who recently stood down as chair of the WRU. Of course, Neath RFC are also called the All Blacks—a great tribute.
In a former life I was a squash player and played for Wales over 100 times. It was a great honour to pull on the red jersey of Wales. I became national coach for Squash Wales, and one of my roles was to develop squash for all ages and all standards throughout Wales. We have a superb junior development structure, which has produced some great players. I am very proud to say that on St David’s Day we will have two senior players ranked in the top 10 in the world, and they have both come through the junior structure: Tesni Evans, based in Prestatyn, is  two times British champion and bronze medallist at the last Commonwealth games; and Joel Makin from Aberdare, a member of the Welsh men’s team who came third in the last world championships. Wales is again showing that we are punching above our weight.

Rob Roberts: Will the hon. Member give way?

Christina Rees: Sure—a squash player?

Rob Roberts: Not a squash player, but almost. On a sporting theme, would the hon. Member be kind enough to pay tribute to the wonderful Jade Jones from Flint in my constituency who has, since the last time this debate was held—since last St David’s Day, in fact—become 2019 world champion in taekwondo?

Christina Rees: Of course I will. Jade is fantastic advocate for women’s sport, and I am glad that the hon. Member intervened to mention her.
Coming back to squash, there is a great injustice. We have been campaigning for many years to get squash into the Olympics. It has never been included, despite having championships at every national and international level. I have been banging on about this for quite a few years, so I ask all Members to join me to ensuring that squash becomes an Olympic sport.
I am not the only Welsh Labour MP who has represented Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) is a Welsh rugby international. I must say that that game is far too tough for me; one good tackle and I think I would be done for, so I will stay off the rugby field.
That is enough from me. I look forward to all Members’ contributions and wish the whole House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.

Stephen Crabb: It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees). She is such a powerful voice for Welsh sport and for women’s sport across the United Kingdom.
I will begin by congratulating the new ministerial team at the Wales Office, who have made a really superb start, with energy and a sense of purpose; they are doing a really good job. I also thank all Members on both sides of the House who nominated or supported me to be the Chair-elect of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am conscious that I have very big boots to fill, given that the previous Chair of that Committee over the last two Parliaments is the current Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). It has been made clear to me in no uncertain terms by different colleagues that they expect me to continue his collegiate and constructive style of leading the Committee. I will endeavour to do so while also relishing the prospect of scrutinising the work of the previous Chair and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
There has been something of a fresh mood in this place since the start of the year, on the back of the general election and other changes. That sentiment is not only felt on the Government Benches; I think that all Members, in different ways, have been feeling the fresh atmosphere around this place over the past couple  of months. So my first thought is this: how do we—as 40 Welsh Members of Parliament from different locations and parties, and with different sets of interests and backgrounds—make sure that Wales shares that sense of a fresh start for this Parliament? The Government are absolutely clear that this is going to be a changed Parliament—a Parliament where things get done and get moving—so how do we work together to make sure that Wales can be part of that in a very positive way? There are some major opportunities ahead for Wales which, if we can work together, can be harnessed for the benefit of all of our constituents. There are also challenges ahead, and we should not be shy about discussing those.
Regardless of all our individual perspectives, one thing that I think we can agree on is that the general election that we all went through in November and December did not result in a vote for things to carry on as they had been. It was not a vote for more of the same, and it certainly was not a vote for more of the same in Wales. Those of us who were here in the previous Parliament, particularly in the past couple of years, will look back on the sheer sense of frustration that we were all feeling week by week, with nothing happening and nothing moving—the sense of everything being gummed up and stuck. When we went back to our constituents we would hear and feel the anger from constituents who had also sensed that feeling of frustration. We have now turned that corner, and it is incumbent on all of us to be able to demonstrate to our voters, who have put us all here, that we can get things done in this Parliament. I am not just talking about big issue of Brexit and all the practical issues that follow from the Brexit vote. I am talking about other issues as well—some of the themes that other Members have raised, such as infrastructure and other projects. Perhaps we in this Parliament can do a little better at working together in the years ahead.
I mentioned the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. It did brilliant work, on a cross-party basis, to bring forward practical recommendations that even led to the very good decision of the previous Welsh Secretary to remove tolls on the Severn Bridge. Right on cue, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has walked in. That proposal started off as a recommendation from the Welsh Affairs Committee. It was due in no small part to the efforts and lobbying of members of the Welsh Affairs Committee that that change got through. So working together, I believe that we can get things done for Wales.
Another thought I would like to share is how we, as Members of Parliament, address the issues in this place that affect our constituencies. Those of us who have been around for the bulk of the past 20 years, during the era of devolution, have rather got used to delineating in our heads between devolved issues and non-devolved issues, being careful not to speak about devolved issues and carefully treading with sensitivity on the right side of the devolution boundary. However, the truth—I saw this during the election campaign when talking to voters on the doorstep—is that voters do not care whether an issue is devolved or non-devolved, or whether it is a local authority issue. They just care about the issue and expect us, as someone standing to be a Member of Parliament, to care too, and to have something meaningful to say about it when, if we are fortunate enough to be  elected, we come up to this place. We are not trying to blur the devolution boundary or be clever with it; we respect where the different responsibilities lie.
We should not be shy, as Welsh Members of Parliament, about talking about education and healthcare. I am really pleased to see the new hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) here today, because some of her predecessor’s most powerful contributions in recent years were on the state of the NHS in Wales. We remember that very keenly. I think that many of our voters do now understand very clearly the devolution split. When we explain to them the different responsibilities of Cardiff Ministers and Ministers here in Westminster, they nod their heads and show they understand, but they are still, as I say, looking to their Members of Parliament to demonstrate that we care, that we understand, and that we have a view.
Over the past 20 years, during the course of devolution, there has been something of a process of the diminishing importance of Westminster, or an attempt to diminish its importance in the eyes of Welsh voters, and an increasing emphasis on the importance of the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. One of the ways that I interpret the Brexit vote is that it was about voters saying that they value what goes on in Westminster. It is not about saying that the Welsh Assembly is less important, but Brexit is partly about restoring this place to its rightful prominence as the key arena of UK-wide debate and the contesting of different ideas.
As Welsh Members of Parliament, we stand as equals in that. I have made my views known about the—

Mark Tami: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Crabb: I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, so I will give way.

Mark Tami: I raised this issue in the Chamber the other day when we had the English-only votes and I was unable to express my view on funding for Countess of Chester Hospital. That hospital was built to serve Deeside and Chester and the area around it. An English Member of Parliament miles from that area is allowed to express a view on it, whereas I am not, even though many people in Alyn and Deeside go to it.

Stephen Crabb: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it was exactly the one I was anticipating. He intervened at exactly the right point in my speech where I was about to mention English votes for English laws. I have made my personal views about this known. I strongly believe that Welsh MPs are not second-class. Our role here is as important as everyone else’s and we have a really important job to do. Wales does have a face here. Wales has a voice here, and we are it. It is the particular role of the Secretary of State for Wales to be those things at the Cabinet table, but we have a job to help to strengthen his hand when he goes there to represent Wales. All of us, in the different Select Committees that we sit on, the different all-party parliamentary groups that we belong to and the Question Times that we take part in, are a face and a voice for Wales. There is nothing second-class about our role here, and we should get stuck in as much as possible.  Yes, there is a role for party political debate and conflict at times, but there is also a strong role for co-operation and a Team Wales approach from all 40 of us.
I will finish by talking about a practical issue that has already been discussed in part—the shared prosperity fund. I very much hope that the new Welsh Affairs Committee will take an early decision to get its teeth into scrutinising the progress in Government on making decisions about the shared prosperity fund. In the eyes of many colleagues, this is fundamentally a constitutional question of who gets to make the decisions—where the balance of responsibility lies between Cardiff and Westminster over that pot of money. For me, it is primarily an economic issue of how we put that money to good use to benefit the economy. I tried to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this point. I do not think that he or anybody else questions the fact that previous rounds of EU funding have gone to useful causes and good projects—we see that in all our constituencies where this money has been received—but the fundamental point is that the primary objective of EU structural funds is to close an economic gap between poorer regions and areas and an EU average, and if that economic gap has not been closed, there are some hard questions to be asked about whether the money can be used to better effect to achieve stronger economic growth. That is the opportunity that I want the Welsh Government and the UK Government, working together, to take with regard to the shared prosperity fund. I very much hope that the new Welsh Affairs Committee will get its teeth into that.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while it is imperative that we have control and use the money effectively, we must not lose the overall amount of money that we are allowed to spend? The shared prosperity fund must grant Wales the quantum of money that we got from convergence funding so that we can use it better but do not have less.

Stephen Crabb: I do agree. I am concerned about three things: first, the size of the pot; secondly, who gets to make the decisions about how the pot is used; and, thirdly—crucially—how the pot is used.

Craig Williams: It is forever about money, money, money, but the Government have made that clear. It is incredibly sad that we qualified for that third round and that nothing was done over that period to sort out the huge inequality that Wales has faced.

Stephen Crabb: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been said before, but it is not an accolade for Wales to achieve this status, and all politicians in Wales should have a restless ambition that Wales should not qualify for that kind of funding in future.

Jonathan Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is making some very relevant points, but will he add one more consideration to his list? One of the great benefits of the way the European system worked was the multi-annual financial framework, with a five, six or seven-year programme. That will be difficult in the UK context, because we will not be able to bind the next Government, so we will be looking at five years at best, but it must be for the maximum length of the Parliament, not determined every year in the Budget.

Stephen Crabb: That is an important point, but I do not share that sense of pessimism that we will not be able to achieve multi-year agreements for funding, regardless of changes in Government.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I will make two quick points. One is a local point for the Secretary of State as he is discussing Budget issues with colleagues in government, regarding a small piece of rail infrastructure in Milford Haven, the largest town in my constituency. Its railway station is merely a slab of concrete with a portakabin. We can do better than that, surely. I would be grateful if he would take up that issue in discussions with colleagues. Finally, given that a tradition seems to have been established this afternoon of paying tribute to strong Welsh women in sport, I will pay tribute to Jasmine Joyce from my constituency, who this week was selected again for the Great Britain rugby sevens squad.

Eleanor Laing: I call Richard Thomson.

Richard Gordon Thomson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or diolch; it is a great pleasure to be called to speak in the debate and to have the opportunity to wish everyone, on behalf of my group in this place, a very happy St David’s Day when it comes. I also want to pass on my best wishes for the rugby on 14 March—not too many, although I do not think Wales will need much luck on that score.
My perspective in this debate is one of looking from afar, from the north-east of Scotland. If the House will permit me, I want to share some personal recollections. One of the first major political campaigns I got involved in was the devolution referendum of 1997, campaigning for a yes-yes vote in Scotland. I well remember the delight that my colleagues and I experienced that evening and the sense of the bright future that was beckoning, whatever it held. The following week, there was the vote in Wales. I remember a considerably more youthful looking Huw Edwards—I am sure he would not mind my saying that—anchoring the results programme. I went to bed that night quite despondent at the way the result appeared to be panning out, then woke up to find that the final result in Carmarthen had delivered a sufficient margin to ensure that it was a yes all round.
In Scotland, we had a significant task after that, because it was very difficult to live up to some of the unrealistic expectations that had built up around the institution. To those of us watching from Edinburgh, it seemed in those early years that Wales was doing devolution rather better than we were. Scotland’s First Minister at the time, Jack McConnell, had a much mocked ambition of trying to do less, better. It often seemed to us—in those early years, at least—that Wales was doing considerably better with less than we were.
If we fast-forward to the referendum on legislative powers in 2011, the contrast between the result then and the result in 1997 was striking. The vote to transfer legislative powers was supported the length and breadth of Wales by a margin of two to one. That seemed to be not only a vote to transfer legislative powers but a vote of confidence in that institution—here was an institution that was now firmly embedded in the democratic and political landscape of Welsh life.
I well recall the then Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, describing the period to follow as
“the decade to deliver for Wales.”
Others in this place will have strong views, and they are perhaps better qualified than I am to decide whether that was in fact lived up to. Looking from afar, I remember the Government led by Carwyn Jones commendably being prepared to speak out on what he thought were the shortcomings of the UK Government—he certainly put many of his Scottish colleagues to shame in his willingness to do so—but the perspective is one of drift rather than delivery. Post Brexit, the UK Government are in their pomp at the moment—I hope they do not think me unkind for saying that—about getting Brexit done and the need to level up. We will measure over time how the rhetoric matches up with the reality, but there is no doubt for me that considerable levelling up is required in Wales.
HS2 has been mentioned by several Members. My constituency, in the north-east of Scotland, is forecast to lose out as a result of HS2 being constructed, as parts of England become more competitive at our expense. I have to ask: where is the equivalent benefit for Wales out of this, other than the crumbs that will come from the table? I understand the argument about being able to bid into the supply chain and that process, but where are the transformative projects to balance that out and do some of the levelling up? For example, why will electrification of the Great Western line stop at Cardiff, instead of going on to Swansea? What about the full electrification of the valleys lines? We all know we have a climate change crisis that we need to tackle, and this is just one of a number of transformative projects that could benefit everyone in Wales and help to level up.
In that vein, where is the investment in the A470? When we look at a map of Wales, it is clear that considerable priority has been placed on east-west links, but where is the corresponding investment in north-south links? Where is the investment in digital connectivity? Since the UK Government retain regulatory responsibility for that, where are the coverage guarantees for 5G, so that it does not just hit the main population centres, and the main lines of communication and, crucially, rural areas are able to enjoy the same level of connectivity as their urban counterparts? It is clear that there is a need for that sustained investment in physical and social infrastructure in order to deliver the sustainable growth that Wales needs and the productivity increases that will allow all parts of Wales and all the people of Wales to reach their fullest potential.
In hopefully drawing my remarks to a controlled and orderly stop, as I tap the dashboard I would like to make one further observation on politics in Wales. If we can measure the democratic health of a country by the state of its Opposition, Wales seems to be in a rather better condition at this point in time than Scotland. Several years and a few jobs ago, I had the great pleasure of working here as the head of research for the Scottish National party group, although it was a considerably smaller group then. During that time, I had the great pleasure of seeing the former Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Adam Price, at work. I have to say that I am also very impressed with the current Member for that seat.
I well remember the contributions that Mr Price made in this Chamber and the way he used to light it up with his ideas, his eloquence and his clear passion to make Wales a much better place. I am delighted that he has made it back into active politics and to see him in his place in the Senedd. The people of Wales are incredibly fortunate to be in a position where they can choose him to be their next First Minister; they would be incredibly well served if they did so.
Finally, a point often made is that for all that Wales now has the significant legislative powers that came in in 2011, it lacks some of the institutional architecture that might help to make sense of those laws and allow them to be used to their fullest extent, particularly when we compare Wales with some of the institutions and the institutional architecture in Scotland, which are able to implement and monitor different policy choices. I urge people not to be frightened of or to feel inhibited by that, but rather to press ahead because self-government, if it means anything, absolutely means not just having the opportunity but having the right and indeed the obligation to make the best choices they can for the communities that have elected them to sit in whichever democratic institution they are elected to.
Looking from afar, as I say, it seems very clear that Wales is on something of a journey, and that journey goes on in terms of resolving its relationship within the United Kingdom and looking outwards to the rest of the world. Whether or not the end point of that journey is full national status, it is pretty clear that the people of Wales should be constrained only by the limits of their own talents, the limits of their own resources, the limits of their own imagination—and by the limits of nobody else.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I am delighted to call Dr Jamie Wallis to make his maiden speech.

Jamie Hamilton Wallis: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this House during the general debate on Welsh affairs. For me, it is a great honour to be the first Conservative MP elected for Bridgend during my lifetime. This is especially so, given that for most of my life I have lived in Bridgend, the wider borough of Bridgend or within just a few miles of it. I grew up in the area, and while the constituency is called Bridgend, it is so much more than just Bridgend town—such as the beautiful seaside town of Porthcawl, where I went to school and lived for many years. Therefore, this moment feels like a special privilege and honour for me to be standing here as the newly elected Member for a place I care deeply about.
I am sure my colleagues will agree, especially those who are newly elected, that when we arrive for the first time at the Palace of Westminster as an MP, it can be a particularly overwhelming experience. This was especially so in my case, as when I arrived in mid-December, it was my very first time here. I had not been here on a visit, a school trip or anything. Experiencing the aura and magnificence of Parliament for the first time as an MP  made those first few days particularly special. I have to say that my general feeling of being overwhelmed and daunted was perhaps enhanced by all the Members on this side of the House who introduced themselves to me by telling me how much they liked and respected my predecessor.
Like those colleagues, I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Madeleine Moon, who was the Member for Bridgend for 14 and a half years, since May 2005. Madeleine Moon first caught the attention of the national press during the tragic spate of suicides in Bridgend during 2007 and 2008. She spoke up eloquently for the town in one of its darkest hours, and fought against the negative media narrative that was developing at the time. After these terrible events, she often spoke about mental health issues—and this is an area I hope to pick up and continue—campaigning for increased awareness of mental health and related issues, and additional support for all those who suffer such illnesses. As well as service as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Madeleine Moon was a member of the UK delegation to NATO since 2010, and she was elected as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in November 2018, for which colleagues on all sides of the House will commend her and pay tribute to her.
The armed forces are incredibly important to the people of Bridgend. While out campaigning during the last election, you could hardly get through a single street without meeting a military family or a veteran, and when you spoke to them about their experiences with the armed forces, it was clear early on just how emotive and important that part of their past is to them. These strong links with our armed forces go back many years. It was only in October of last year that we learned of the fate of HMS Urge, a world war two submarine that we now know was lost with all souls off the coast the Malta in April 1942. She was constructed in 1940, partly using funds raised by the people of Bridgend town and was later adopted by the town, and many of those serving on board had close ties to Bridgend or lived there. I am pleased that Bridgend Town Council is sending a delegation to Malta in late April to take part in a commemoration service, at which I hope to be present as well.
My constituents are a proud people, and proud of their communities. Every part of the constituency is touched by strong community spirit, which is seen so often in the hard work and dedication of so many community groups and volunteer-based organisations, some of which I have had the pleasure of meeting in my first weeks as an MP. As well as fantastic national organisations, such as the YMCA—it is, unfortunately, having to find new premises in Bridgend town now—and the Bridgend Dogs Trust, Bridgend is full of small local groups that give up their time to help make our communities even better.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the Badgers Brook allotments in Brackla, a site which was previously derelict, but the hard work of a small group of community-minded volunteers has been turned the area into a place for everyone nearby—from children to pensioners—to learn about growing their own food and taking pride in their community. Likewise, the Memory Lane Friendship Group in Pyle is an entirely volunteer-run group that   meets weekly to give people suffering from dementia an opportunity to spend time and socialise with trained volunteers. These are just two examples of the huge number of such groups in Bridgend that typify the strength of community spirit in my constituency.
Such pride and spirit is perhaps why so many people speak out passionately about the state of Bridgend town centre. Those that live in the older parts of Bridgend such as Oldcastle, Newcastle, Litchard, Cefn Glas and the more established housing estates of Brackla and Wildmill often recall when the town centre was vibrant, active and full of life. With so many new developments in Bridgend, such as estates in Parc Derwen in Coity and Broadlands near Bryntirion, bringing new homes, new families and new residents to Bridgend, many are confused as to why the town seems to be suffering quite as it is. This once thriving market town has seen a decline that is more pronounced than many have observed elsewhere. While the centre is still home to wonderful small businesses and has an array of offerings for visitors, there can be no doubt about the level of concern at the number of empty premises, the decreasing footfall and the overall state of the streets, especially at night.
I recently met occupants of the indoor market who, true to the spirit of Bridgend, have given up their time to improve the market, and I enjoyed seeing all the wonderful progress they have made in recent times. However, it is clear that much more needs to be done. I congratulate the Government on getting straight to work on levelling up, with their £3.6 billion towns fund. Unfortunately, this fund applies only to towns in England, and I know that the people of Bridgend eagerly anticipate similar measures being taken for the towns of Wales by the Welsh Government.
While media reports that Bridgend is home to the highest levels of rodent infestation in the UK might perhaps explain why I feel so at home here in the Palace, they typify why the proud people of Bridgend are so passionate about seeing immediate and substantial improvements to the state of the area. However, I can assure the House that this is not the only wildlife in the constituency. Indeed, we are the proud home of the award-winning Kenfig nature reserve, one of the country’s top sand dune reserves, with an array of beautiful wild fen orchids, which birds and unique species of insects depend on for their survival. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers, who come not only from Kenfig and the surrounding communities of Pyle and Cornelly but from afar, to support and protect the reserve, especially those that endured a difficult recent campaign to clarify the reserve’s future, following the end of the lease held by the local council.
Close to the nature reserve are some of the most wonderful beaches in the country—in Porthcawl, which I mentioned earlier. People come from far and wide to surf at Rest bay, where I often go to enjoy a bit of peace and quiet away from Westminster, but that is not always possible, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) will agree. I often see him there, with surfboard in tow, and I am grateful for every encounter we have. Porthcawl offers even more than this, with the nearby Coney beach and its fairground being enjoyed by people from all over the country. Even being a tourist hotspot, however, one of the main attractions that brings people to Porthcawl is the annual   Elvis festival, attended by up to 35,000 people. If Members would like to attend the next festival, there will be no risk of their being “lonesome tonight”.
As a newly elected Member for a constituency that has had Conservative representation after only one other election in its history, it is fitting that I close my maiden speech by acknowledging the need to repay the trust placed in me, particularly by those who voted for my party for the first time. This begins with listening. My first priorities have centred around engaging with as many people as possible, and I will continue to keep my promises to hold regular surgeries, to be present in the constituency, and to meet as many residents as possible. I look forward to engaging with our local schools, our excellent Princess of Wales Hospital and its fantastic hard-working staff, as well as with businesses and our community leaders, and I will ensure that I am fully equipped to represent their views in this House. As I said earlier, Bridgend is home to a proud people who do not expect the earth, but they do expect an MP who is on their side and fighting their corner, and that is exactly the kind of MP I hope to be.

Wayne David: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure he will make many more worthwhile contributions in this House. As someone who comes from a small village near Bridgend, I wish him well, and I look forward to his future contributions to the Elvis festival in Porthcawl.
I wish to refer to the flooding that has afflicted a number of areas in my constituency over the past couple of weeks. In Bedwas, Machen, Llanbradach and Bargoed, homes and businesses—and in Bedwas a rugby club—have suffered flooding, in some cases quite severely. For many there is no insurance, and everyone who has suffered physical damage to their properties has also suffered emotional trauma. It is appalling when someone suffers the consequence of their home flooding with dirty water. Everywhere, the community has shown exemplary resilience and pulled together, with people helping each other. In Bedwas, where I live, volunteers have cleaned the local rugby club, and an amazing sum of money has been collected. On Sunday night, I will attend a sell-out concert in Bedwas workmen’s hall, to collect money for local people who have been affected by the floods. I pay tribute to the workers of Caerphilly County Borough Council, who have worked tirelessly to help people and deal with situations that are unprecedented in recent times.
Tomorrow I will meet parliamentary colleagues, Assembly Members, and the leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council, Councillor Philippa Marsden. We will review the situation, and I am sure we will agree to reinforce the representations already made for additional central Government funding for the areas hit by flooding. Those extra resources are required from London so that the Welsh Government, and our local authorities, can continue to respond effectively to this unprecedented situation.
I wish to raise a couple of other issues. We have heard about the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow airport, and about the Court of Appeal ruling against those plans on the basis that the expansion would breach environmental legislation. Be that as it may,  it does not alter the fact that Heathrow expansion, if correctly done with appropriate legislation, could bring enormous benefit to the British economy, and especially to the economy of south Wales. I hope that the Government will get their act together and come forward with appropriate legislation that protects the environment, so that the expansion can go ahead and bring economic benefits to the country, including in Wales.
The independent Airports Commission has concluded that an expanded Heathrow will mean an extra 8,400 jobs in Wales, and up to £8 billion more in economic growth. The economy of Wales is largely based on exports, 60% of which go to the European Union. With an expanded and enhanced western rail link to Heathrow, expansion of that airport will bring tremendous economic benefits to Wales. It will mean more visitors to Wales, more destinations that Welsh tourists can reach, and, crucially, more opportunity for Welsh businesses to get to those all-important new markets. That is why the Welsh Government are firmly in support of the new runway, and I desperately hope that the Government manage to get their act together.
I also wish to mention the growing importance of UK defence contracts to the Welsh economy. In the last financial year alone, the Ministry of Defence spent more than £1 billion with industry in Wales, directly supporting more than 7,500 jobs. That is welcome, but we need much more of that. Last autumn, I went to the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London’s Docklands, which is the largest exhibition of its kind anywhere in the world. I was especially pleased to see an excellent stand from Wales, organised by the Welsh Government. These things give huge opportunities to small and medium-sized businesses from Wales, which are increasingly benefiting from defence contracts. Those contracts also have a huge knock-on effect on the supply chains in Wales.
I was especially pleased to see a company from my constituency represented on that stand in the defence exhibition. Drone Evolution from Caerphilly is a small company that recognises that there are opportunities in the defence sector, as well as in the civilian sector—it is important to recognise that these days, those two things go very much together. I am also pleased about the investment by Thales in Blaenau Gwent. In 2009 Thales—again, with the support of the extremely proactive Welsh Government—launched its National Digital Exploitation Centre. That is in the heads of the valleys, where it is especially welcome. As we know, the heads of the valleys in south Wales continue to suffer economic and social deprivation, and a lot more sustained work is needed to ensure that those communities are rehabilitated and given the dynamic future they deserve.
I was also pleased at the significant investment by General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil—an area not dissimilar from Blaenau Gwent; it is just along the heads of the valleys from it, and it has seen far better times. The decision by General Dynamics to assemble and test the Army’s new Ajax vehicles in Merthyr has been extremely successful, and a huge fillip to the Welsh economy. Before long, however, that contract will come to an end, and it is important for the community and the workforce that a significant new contract be secured.
The multi-role vehicle protected programme will be a significant addition to the Army and to the country’s very high readiness forces, and the troop-carrying vehicles and battlefield ambulances could well be built in Merthyr Tydfil. A procurement process is under way at the Ministry of Defence, but I urge the Government to make real the principles and arguments advanced so articulately by the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) in the Dunne report.
We must recognise that defence contracts are not simply a matter for the Ministry of Defence to consider in isolation. If we are serious about developing a sovereign capability, and I believe all of us should be, defence contracts must take into account the social and economic contribution they can make to the country as a whole and to hard-pressed regions like the south Wales valleys. That is the essential message of the Dunne report. I hope the Government will make it real, beginning by ensuring that General Dynamics secures that contract in Merthyr Tydfil.
These are not easy times in Wales, but it is very clear that Wales today is a nation with very special values. I end as I started: by saying that the response of people to the floods shows that the nation of Wales is essentially a community of people with strong co-operative and collective values. Long may that continue.

Simon Baynes: It was the greatest honour of my life to be elected MP for Clwyd South. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Susan Elan Jones. Susan served Clwyd South with distinction for almost 10 years as our MP, and I have always much admired her strong sense of integrity, kindness and concern for others. It is fair to say that Susan and I can take comfort from the fact that we have at different times achieved a result in Clwyd South that eluded my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who famously said about his experiences in the 1997 general election:
“I fought Clwyd South and Clwyd South fought back.”
That said, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be standing here but for the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister in the general election campaign.
The past two months have been eventful for me, to say the least—settling into Parliament, and attending events and holding surgeries in Clwyd South, combined with the unexpected death of my mother on 7 January. After a fall on new year’s day at her home in the north of Powys, where I grew up, my mother was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and died six days later. She was fortunate in going quickly and with little pain at the fine age of 87, but it was nevertheless a shock for all of us in the family. Of course, this is an experience shared with many others in Clwyd South, and the days that I spent in hospital with her only increased my respect for the ability of the NHS to contend with sudden medical crises, and for the kindness of the staff who looked after her.
Over the past two months, Clwyd South has seen more than its fair share of exceptional events; there was the fire at the Kronospan factory in Chirk, and the effects of Storms Ciara and Dennis. I have tried to make myself available to the people affected by these events. For instance, after the fire, I held an eight-hour surgery in Chirk to listen to people’s concerns. On 14 February,  in the company of local county councillors, I visited some of the areas worst hit by the storms, such as Bangor-on-Dee and the Ceiriog valley. There are lessons to be learned from these events, and over the coming weeks I will continue to work hard with key stakeholders, across political parties, to make sure that real and substantial improvements are made to lessen problems in the future.
There is so much to celebrate in the businesses, organisations, sports teams, volunteers and communities of Clwyd South. As an MP, my job is to listen to people’s problems and to do my best to resolve them, but it is also to support and promote people’s successes. I attended my first event in the constituency on the day I was elected, 13 December. I visited the Esclusham senior citizens Christmas party by kind invitation of local county councillor Mark Pritchard, who is also leader of Wrexham Council. Since then, I have enjoyed events across the constituency, including a visit to the Llangollen steam railway’s Corwen extension project and the Overton playcentre. In Parliament, I am now a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I attend events relating to Clwyd South, such as the recent Macmillan Cancer Support event and the meeting yesterday with North Wales Tourism, which features the Llangollen canal, a UNESCO world heritage site, in its marketing material.
Clwyd South has a proud industrial and mining heritage, seen not only in the Llangollen canal and its magnificent aqueducts, but in projects such as the Brymbo heritage centre, which is raising funds to create a visitor attraction to celebrate the buildings, machinery, landscape, industry and people of the former Brymbo steelworks. This remarkable heritage lives on in the large number of businesses that thrive in Clwyd South today, from larger companies such as Ifor Williams Trailers in Corwen and the Village Bakery, based in Coedpoeth, to smaller companies in the Vauxhall industrial estate between Johnstown and Ruabon, where my constituency office is located. Wales, of course, was the powerhouse of the industrial revolution and is now a country with cutting-edge innovation, inventive entrepreneurs, and an increasingly successful record of selling itself and its products abroad.
Tourism is also a major industry in Clwyd South—an industry I grew up in. My father ran Lake Vyrnwy hotel, not far away in the very north of Powys. We boast a wide range of hotels and bed and breakfasts, from which visitors can explore our beautiful countryside and heritage, including two of the most visited National Trust properties in Wales, Chirk Castle and Erddig Hall. They can take part in the many cultural activities in the constituency, particularly those celebrating the Welsh language, which is widely spoken across Clwyd South and taught in our thriving schools. The Llangollen international musical eisteddfod, of which I used to be a trustee, draws many visitors, as do the concerts given by the Rhos, Fron and other local male voice choirs.
We need to provide strong support to our farmers, who care for the countryside, which people flock to visit, from the upland farms in the west to the lowland farms in the east, in the Maelor, on the border with Cheshire and Shropshire. As we know, farmers work long hours and have major problems such as bovine TB to contend with. We must ensure that they can make a decent livelihood if we are to protect our environment and wildlife and combat global warming.
But above all, Clwyd South is special for the warmth, good humour and kindness of its close-knit communities. A key part of health and wellbeing is the NHS, which could be run better in Wales, but that is the subject of another speech. Strong communities are also a vital part of ensuring that people are happy and feel supported. This has been a particular interest of mine through the charity, Concertina—Music for the Elderly, which I set up with my wife Maggie over 20 years ago to provide live music for older people in care homes and day centres across Wales and England. Music is often the only mode of communication that can penetrate deep dementia and Alzheimer’s, and these concerts bring people together and combat loneliness, which is one of the aspects of modern life that we must work much harder to alleviate.
St David’s Day is a time of celebration of all that is unique and inspiring about Wales. Clwyd South represents the very best of these qualities, and I look forward to serving my constituents to the very best of my ability in the coming years.

Kevin Brennan: I extend my congratulations and condolences to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes): I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech but offer my condolences, and I am sure those of every Opposition Member, on the loss of his mother. I am sure that his mother would have been immensely proud of him not only for being elected to the House, but for the speech he has just made. He is just starting out on his parliamentary career—he is almost exactly the same age as I am; in other words, just about reaching his prime in life. I take this opportunity to declare that I think I am now officially the longest-serving Welsh MP from any party in this House. I think I signed in before my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) in 2001, and I am therefore claiming the title Tad y Tŷ— “Father of the House” in Welsh—at least for this gathering today.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the charity that he set up, Concertina, and I very much agree with what he said about the power of music and its impact on older people. Having volunteered for a charity in a care home to play music to older people, I look forward to talking to him more about the work that he has been undertaking. I also thank him for paying tribute, quite properly, to his predecessor, Susan Elan Jones, who really was the best of us as a Member of Parliament, from any party, and who was a great champion in this place for Wales and particularly for the Welsh language.
It is a great pleasure to speak in today’s debate from the Back Benches, having served almost continuously for 15 years on the Front Benches, both in government and in opposition. It is quite a relief to have the freedom to roam and talk about anything I want. Today, I want to talk about the future of public service broadcasting in Wales, in particular BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—not least in the light of the publication this morning by Ofcom of its five-year review of public service broadcasting, “Small Screen: Big Debate”. The key finding in the report is that public service broadcasting remains extremely important and relevant to the UK as whole, but I think that is especially true for us in Wales.
On St David’s Day 1967, BBC Wales opened Broadcasting House in Llandaff in my constituency. After 53 years, it recently moved to a brand-new, high-tech, modern headquarters just over the River Taff in the city centre. It remains a major employer for my constituents and residents of many other constituencies across Wales. Of more than 1,000 employees, many live in Cardiff West. BBC Cymru Wales is a key community partner in my constituency for the new state-of-the-art Cardiff West Community High School, which the Labour council recently built with funding assistance from the Welsh Government. That partnership provides exciting opportunities for students from the communities of Ely and Caerau who badly need them. Indeed, Caerau boy and top BBC talent Jason Mohammad was at the opening of the school, which was built on the site of the school he attended, to promote its partnership with the BBC.
I say all that to remind the House that public service broadcasting in the form of BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and S4C, and the many producers and other ancillary services it supports, plays a huge role in Welsh culture, Welsh society and the Welsh economy. That includes Welsh language television and radio programming, which plays a key part in promoting and building the language and will make a vital contribution to achieving the Welsh Government’s aspiration of having 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. Part of the licence fee now funds the Welsh language channel S4C, so proposals to scrap or even, as I understand someone from No. 10 said, to “whack” the licence fee without properly examining the consequences threaten the culturally and socially vital programming that is so important to Wales as a nation. A purely profit-drive subscription system would destroy public service broadcasting, in particular S4C.
The Prime Minister likes to make a big point about his undying love for the Union, but it is strange how cavalier his Government are about Wales’s presence and influence within the Union. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the licence fee, the BBC charter and public service broadcasting more generally to Wales’ place as one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. The BBC, ITV Wales and S4C are major Welsh employers, both indirectly and directly. They have brought many programmes we are all familiar with—“Doctor Who”, “Pobol y Cwm”, “Casualty”, “Torchwood”, “Life on Mars”, “Sherlock”, “Hinterland”, “Keeping Faith” and “Gavin and Stacey”—to UK-wide and indeed global audiences. Today, the Ofcom report shows that public service broadcasting production in Wales has risen threefold since 2010. It is still only 3% of the total, so there is room for further growth, but it is hugely important in our economy and a growing sector.
BBC Wales and S4C play huge roles in promoting Welsh music, employing musicians and composers not just through things like the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, but through Welsh language music on Radio Cymru and S4C. I say to some colleagues on the Government Benches, who seem to be playing with the concept, that they should resist the temptation to pull at the loose threads of a carefully woven shawl that has been bequeathed to us, just because it looks slightly frayed at the edges. They risk unravelling something precious that can never be recreated.
Quite rightly, there is a debate at Welsh and UK level about the role that public service broadcasting can play in a new world in which we consume our media from a variety of different sources. The founders of the BBC in the 1920s could not have imagined a world in which people could pick up a mobile phone and watch whatever content they cared to choose—as the old Martini ad used to say, “any time, any place, anywhere”. The underlying question for this new world, however, is “Does the concept of public service broadcasting still have relevance?”, and I would argue that, more than ever, it does. In this information free-for-all, the original founding values of the BBC resonate more loudly than ever. In an era of fake news, when conspiracy theorists thrive and journalistic integrity is routinely questioned and undermined by, I have to say, all sides in the political debate, the BBC’s mission to “inform, educate and entertain” has never been more important.
Some ask why public service broadcasters need to entertain when entertainment can be supplied by the market. There are times, I agree, when those broadcasters can be legitimately criticised for straying too far in the direction of content of questionable public value, but we have to realise that in a world of high-tech global corporations hoovering up data and monopolising gateways to content, our cultural sovereignty will suffer without the public service broadcasting framework. It would be ironic if, having supposedly voted to take back control, we handed over the remote control from Cardiff West or Westminster to the west wing of the White House and big tech’s west coast of America.
We therefore need new, flexible regulations to guarantee continuing prominence for public service content, even when the gateway to that content is through a set-top box, a smart TV or a smart speaker. In a world in which Amazon determines what is on the home page of a deliberately discounted loss-leader television monitor, there is a danger that public service content will be locked in a dark cupboard with no key easily available. S4C already suffers from that on the electronic programme guide, having been relegated to channel 166 on Virgin Media and multiple clicks away from the home page of a Sky+ box.
It should be obvious that we need to ensure that trusted, curated information is available to young people in particular, and that they can distinguish between fact and fake, between informed opinion and hateful prejudice. What future is there for democracy without an informed next generation in Wales and beyond with the skills to navigate the deluge of information in the digital era? Public service broadcasting and streaming, through content such as BBC Bitesize, “Newsround” and “My World”, can help to thwart the penetration of untrustworthy news sources to younger generations.
In fact, Ofcom is currently consulting on changes proposed by the BBC to reinvent the service that “Newsround” provides for young people by replacing its evening bulletin with more online content, which already has nearly 1 million users a week compared with the 35,000 six-to-12 year-olds who currently watch the televised 4 pm bulletin. The fact that younger people watch less linear television does not mean that they will not consume public service content, provided that it is made available to them in places where they look for their content.
I was going to say something about sports rights and, in particular, the need for the Six Nations to be put on the category A list, but I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I will just say a bit more about the licence fee. The Government have launched a public consultation on the so-called decriminalisation of non-payment. That proposal was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto. It has been launched within a few years of a previous review which provided clear evidence that decriminalisation would not help those in Wales struggling with their bills, would draw more people into the courts, and would undermine the funding of the BBC.
That review, the Perry review, clearly concluded that the current system was the fairest, and that any move towards decriminalisation of non-payment of the fee would undermine the BBC’s ability to enforce the licence and would not remove the risk of imprisonment. In any case, imprisonment is not an available punishment for non-payment of the licence fee; it is a penalty available to the courts for wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the offender to pay any court-ordered fines. Often, those who are caught for non-payment are fined the value of the fee itself and no criminal case is brought. When cases are brought, the only directly available penalty is a maximum fine of £1,000 and no criminal record, with actual fines served averaging £176.
Furthermore, the Perry review outlined that the current regime serves as an effective deterrent, maintaining the offending rate at a very low 5%. One has to question the Government’s motives in reopening this issue now, in the light of that very recent evidence. If they really want to ease the burden of the licence fee on any group of people, why do they not reinstate free television licences for those over 75 rather than passing the buck on to an already underfunded BBC with no means of sustaining it, and simultaneously undermining BBC finances through this bogus consultation?
This is all part of an agenda by some to undermine, to cut and eventually to privatise large swaths of the BBC, including BBC Cymru Wales. It is also a direct threat to employment in Wales, particularly in my constituency of Cardiff West. As this proposal is not a manifesto pledge, the House of Lords would have every right to reject it if, as expected, the Government decide to ram it through for ideological reasons using their Commons majority. If ever there was an instance in which the Salisbury convention would apply, this is it. The method of enforcing licence fee collection should not be changed before the next charter renewal in 2027. Labour and the Conservatives, and the other parties, can set out in their manifestos for the next election—probably in 2024—where they stand on this issue.
Public service broadcasting through BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and S4C plays a huge part in the lives of our constituents. They are major employers and cultural leaders, and they produce trusted quality television, radio and online content. Back in 1964, Wales got its very own TV service. It was our service and our programming, reflective of our talent and our culture, with content made in Wales by Wales, for Wales and beyond and recognised worldwide. In fact, the Union is stronger for our role in providing some of the UK’s leading TV, film, radio and online exports.
Public service broadcasting might need to be renamed in the age of digital streaming, perhaps as “public service media”, but whatever we call it, we should value  and nurture it. We should ensure that it is not locked away in that dark cupboard where it is difficult to find. We should ensure that it has a sustainable source of funding—either through advertising, in the case of some public service broadcasters, or through the licence fee for others—that allows it to remain independent of Government. We should acknowledge its relevance in a world of fake news, and for Wales we should fight to protect, preserve and enhance it so that it can continue to play a positive role in the language, culture, life and economy of our nation.

David Jones: May I say what a great pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis)? It was also a particular pleasure to be here to listen to the maiden speech of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). The place names that he reeled off when he paid tribute to his fine constituency were something of a gazetteer of my childhood. I am particularly delighted that he has put his constituency base in Ruabon. As an old boy of Ruabon Grammar School, I can tell him that there is no finer location for his constituency headquarters. Both of my hon. Friends are going to be great Members of Parliament and a great asset to this House.
May I also say how pleased I am that the Government have made time for this traditional St David’s Day debate? This is an important event, if only for giving me the opportunity to wear my favourite tie, which has an annual outing on this occasion. It is important, too, because it is essential that Welsh affairs should be debated in this Chamber, even in the post-devolution era. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is even more important now, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said, it is frequently hard to differentiate areas of government in Wales which are devolved and those which are not. The people of Wales frequently have great difficulty in understanding who is responsible for which element of public policy.

Alex Davies-Jones: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In recent weeks, I have twice asked questions of the Government about non-devolved matters and have been told that they are in fact devolved, but the Government have been wrong. I would therefore welcome any education on devolution that we can give to Members on both sides of the House, as well as to the wider world.

David Jones: That is an excellent illustration of the problem. I am sure that many Members were berated frequently during the recent general election campaign about the poor quality of health services in their part of the world, and had to tell people that that is the responsibility not of the Westminster Government, but of the Welsh Assembly Government. The hon. Lady is quite right to raise that issue.
Wales is changing. Nowhere are the changes more apparent than in north Wales, and the poll of 12 December is proof of that. Of the nine seats in north Wales, seven are now represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. Former mining constituencies such as Wrexham and Clwyd South, where I was brought up, now have Conservative representation in this place. That is a  remarkable state of affairs and something that I would not have believed as a boy growing up in the village of Rhosllanerchrugog. The desire for change was apparent at the 2016 referendum and was repeated at the general election two months ago. A challenge has been laid down to the Conservative Government to deliver the change that people are looking for and, most importantly, it is a challenge to deliver the economic change that the people of north Wales seek. Key to delivering that change is the improvement of infrastructure throughout north Wales.
Broadband is an important element of that infrastructure, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) pointed out in his contribution. Much work has already been done, and superfast broadband is indeed present in north Wales and enjoyed by a large section of the business community and some householders. However, it is barely there at all in some parts of north Wales. Take the village of Pandy Tudur in my constituency. I had a complaint from a resident only a couple of weeks ago that she was unable to get broadband speeds of more than 800 kilobits per second. That is completely inadequate for business purposes or leisure purposes and barely adequate to send an email.
Pandy Tudur is certainly a remote village. It is about 12 miles from the nearest town of Abergele, but it is not so remote as, for example, Pitcairn Island. I mention Pitcairn because I happened to watch a TV documentary about it a few weeks ago. Pitcairn is 3,400 miles away from the nearest significant land mass of New Zealand, and yet its residents enjoy speeds of 5 megabits per second, which is enough to enjoy streaming video, so they enjoy a luxury presently denied to my constituents in the village of Pandy Tudur.
The north Wales growth deal, which is an extremely important initiative of the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, has digital infrastructure as a major plank of its policy and is rolling out faster speeds across north Wales. The 2019 Conservative general election manifesto undertook to bring full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the whole of Wales by 2025. That, of course, is highly welcome, but those promises will be judged by what happens on the ground. In the case of the residents of Pandy Tudur, who are looking with envy at the residents of Pitcairn Island, that cannot come fast enough.
The next piece of north Wales infrastructure that needs attention is the A55 expressway. The A55 is a vital arterial road that links north Wales to the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester and to the main motorway network. It was first developed about 30 years ago, but it is already creaking. The area around the Dee crossing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) will attest, is particularly in need of urgent attention. Some 10 years ago the Welsh Assembly Government promised an upgrade of the area around Aston Hill, which was never carried out. The area remains a significant bottleneck for travellers along the A55 in both directions, particularly at holiday times.
I was therefore delighted to see the commitment in the Conservative manifesto:
“we will, working with the Welsh Government, upgrade the A55 as the main…transport artery for North Wales—improving its capacity and resilience to build connections between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.”
The commitment acknowledges that road infrastructure is the devolved competence of the Welsh Government. However, it is a remarkably generous statement of intent to assist the Welsh Government in upgrading that road, and I cannot stress too strongly how much we need that road upgrade in north Wales.
North Wales voters will want to see positive action with a view to early delivery, which is a challenge not only to this Government but to the Welsh Assembly Government. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister touched on that in his winding-up speech and indicated what progress has been made so far on agreeing a plan of action with the Welsh Government for the upgrade of the A55.
The third piece of infrastructure in urgent need of attention is the north Wales rail system. High Speed 2 is very popular and very welcome in north Wales and, contrary to the assertions of some Opposition Members, it will benefit north Wales by cutting journey times between London and north Wales. At the moment, the journey from London Euston to Colwyn Bay, for example, is some two hours and 40 minutes. That will be reduced by about 30 minutes as a consequence of HS2 and the new hub that will be constructed at Crewe, so there is a benefit.
However, HS2, which as I say is tremendously welcome, should not blind us to the need to improve regional connectivity. Journey times from north Wales to the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester are extremely poor, and particularly poor are the journey times to Manchester airport, which is the principal air hub for the north-west of England and north Wales. It takes two hours and 20 minutes to travel from Colwyn Bay to Manchester airport. The journey time by car is approximately half that: one hour and 10 minutes.
Of course, I realise there is a problem in that there is no access to the airport from the west, but there is also a huge problem in the poor quality of the rolling stock. The north Wales line has been operated by Transport for Wales for the past two or three months, and it uses obsolete rolling stock that is well past its sell-by date. There is no reason at all why the people of north Wales should be expected to put up with such rolling stock. Again, although this is a devolved competence of the Welsh Assembly, I urge my hon. Friend to confirm that pressure is being put on it to upgrade the rolling stock so that the people of north Wales can see the improvements that are already being seen in the Cardiff and south Wales area.
Finally, before my voice completely gives out, I would like to refer to a piece of infrastructure that I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: the north Wales tidal lagoon. It will be a tremendously important piece of infrastructure, if the Westminster Government will support it. It would have the capacity to generate some 2.6 GW, which is twice as much as a nuclear power station. It would generate that completely cleanly and predictably, as nothing is more predictable than the tide. I appreciate that we had an unfortunate experience with the Swansea lagoon proposal, which was much smaller, but there is great backing in north Wales, from not only its people, but my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and myself, for seeing this proposal progressed. May I therefore urge the Wales Office to facilitate a meeting between the proposed developer, the Members of Parliament for the relevant area and the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth to  see whether this project can be moved forward? Let me repeat, in conclusion, that north Wales is changing and its people will embrace that change. They want that change, and I believe that this transformational Government can deliver it.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), and I join him on many of the issues he has raised about infrastructure and the potential for a tidal lagoon in north Wales. I am sure he would join me in asking the Department and the Ministers to consider the funding required and the potential for an innovation power purchase agreement in relation to funding tidal lagoons, as was presented to the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth yesterday.
Of course, I should say: Hoffwn gymryd y cyfle hwn i ddymuno Dydd Gŵyl Ddewi hapus iawn i chi i gyd. I am sure all Members will realise from the context that I was, entirely appropriately, wishing everybody a happy St David’s Day in Welsh. For Welsh people and those of Welsh descent all over the world, no matter where we happen to be St David’s Day is a chance to come together to celebrate what it means to bear the mantle of being Welsh, whether by birth, luck or design. Many hon. Members will have taken part in excellent events this week to celebrate St David’s Day as part of Wales Week London. The best in Welsh music, art, food, tourism and heritage is proudly on display here in this city for Cymry tramor—the diaspora of Wales—in London to enjoy. This is an opportunity to showcase what we have to offer to the world. This year, for the first time, Wales Weeks are occurring in 21 places around the world, including New York, Ohio, Paris and Melbourne.
Of course, this is the first St David’s Day since our departure from the European Union, which makes flying the flag for Wales the world over more important than ever. Leaving the EU demands a discussion about what the future holds for Wales; and with our position in the world being redefined around us, we owe it to the people of Wales to set out a positive vision for the future. In the last few years, the political tectonic plates have shifted dramatically across these islands; in Ireland and in Scotland, we have seen a radical realignment of identity and politics. People are no longer willing to accept the old notion that the Celtic fringes are a colourful, cultural indulgence, humoured at best and otherwise tolerated, with the meaningful powers—I say that with an element of sarcasm—shored up where they have always been, in south-east England. With both Irish reunification and Scottish independence now discussed more widely and in more forums than ever before, it is important for us, Welsh politicians of all colours, to be under no illusion about what the future holds for Wales. In the event of the reunification of Ireland and an independent Scotland, the default setting will be the emergence of an England and Wales entity that would surely be the most imbalanced, inequitable so-called Union in the world: one nation would comprise 56 million people, the other 3 million. One would have its devolved Parliament, which would inevitably feel the strain without a wider context of devolution across the state, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) mentioned powerfully earlier.
Even as things currently stand, despite 20 years of devolution there are those who seek to mock, denigrate and deny the people of Wales the institutions and the powers that normal countries take for granted. There is clearly a failure on the part of the current Welsh Government, whose Ministers have failed so spectacularly to capture the hearts and minds of the people with whose Parliament they have been entrusted for 20 years. They are a Government marked by a lack of ambition, by managerialism and by a reluctance to face scrutiny—all tragically evidenced by a decline in education standards and a failing health service. Welsh Labour were given the tools to build a nation; it has kept those tools in the toolbox.
The recent floods raise questions about the performance of both the Welsh and British Governments. There has been chronic under-investment in flood-defence infrastructure and a shameful lack of response. The Prime Minister failed to call a Cobra meeting in response to the floods. The Welsh Government do not even have a Cobra-style national emergency response system. Our First Minister deemed it “too dangerous” to send in the Army to flood-stricken areas, despite their being called in to help in Yorkshire three times in seven months. It is 30 years to the week since the Towyn floods in north Wales, and the message that only preparation can prevent an emergency from turning into a disaster remains unlearned in those 30 years.
The UK Government are already acting to claw back powers to Whitehall. Take, for example, the UK shared prosperity fund. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that there should be a strong Conservative influence over how money that replaces EU structural funds is spent in Wales, despite the Welsh Government having controlled that EU funding over the past two decades. The Secretary of State said earlier that shared prosperity investments have to be meaningful and not vanity indulgences. Let us recall Boris’s bridges: the garden bridge in London and the bridge to Northern Ireland. To put this in context: investment in Wales must be decided in Wales. I put it to the Government that not only is the precedent intolerable, but they are setting down a short-termism precedent that may return in future. Investments for Wales should be made and decided in Wales.
Of course, an England and Wales entity already exists across key policy areas: despite 21 years of devolution, our national Parliament has no powers over policing and justice and we still lack a legal jurisdiction—the only nation in the UK to do so. I therefore wish to explore how treating Wales as an appendage of England in this respect is bad for the people of Wales, because that is exactly how we should look at and evaluate it. The issue is particularly timely because we have the upcoming police and crime commissioner elections in May, when the two excellent Plaid Cymru PCCs, Arfon Jones and Dafydd Llywelyn, will be seeking re-election.
Let us look at some specific problems in Wales in relation to policing and justice—problems to which the solutions are out of the hands of the people of Wales until the powers are devolved. Since the creation of the system of PCCs, we have seen the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice hiving over more and more responsibilities to commissioners to carry out new functions. But—this is the important point—rather than seeing a corresponding level of additional funding, we have for  10 years seen an abdication of duty on the part of the UK Government to fund the police service. It is all very well to talk about additional thousands of police officers now, but we are talking about 10 years of underfunding and what politicians with the interests of the people of Wales in mind have had to do in Wales to provide some remedy.
The PCCs have been forced to rely on raising the local tax precept. The precept for the four Welsh forces as a proportion of the overall funding increased from 32% in 2008-09 to 47% in 2019-20. They did that for good reason: to keep the police on the streets and to keep the public safe. This increase in police precepts meant that Welsh police funding was £34 million greater in 2018 than it would have been had it risen in line with that of England. We have had to find the means to do it ourselves without the sufficient powers to do so, but we have done it anyway. That is a message for all of us. None the less, this is clearly an unfair funding system, demanding a stark choice between increasing the precept and cutting services, neither of which would need to be done if the Home Office addressed the issues with a comprehensive and equitable funding formula.
The prison system in Wales is also let down by the current framework. Research carried out by Dr Robert Jones of Cardiff University’s Welsh governance centre found that in 2017 Wales had the highest prison population rate in western Europe, with 154 prisoners per 100,000 population. That is equivalent to one in every 650 people, and this is despite the fact that recorded crime in Wales was lower than in England in every year between 2013 and 2017. I wonder whether this is something to do with the fact that we have had to put our money where our mouth is in Wales. We have had to do that, and it has had an effect.
Women are more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence than men. That is despite the fact that there are no women’s facilities in Wales. In 2016, 623 women were sentenced to immediate custody, 86 of whom were convicted for non-violent offences. They were sent to facilities in England, far away from their families—and we know the effect that that has on the children—when a more rehabilitative programme based in their communities would have been better for everyone. Wales was promised a residential unit for female offenders back in 2018, but we have yet to see it even in 2020.
Imprisonment rates among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are even more disproportionate relative to population in Wales than in England. For every 10,000 white people in Wales, 14 are in prison. For every 10,000 black people in Wales, 91 are in prison. Further to that, BAME people have the highest average sentence length. Therefore, a person of colour in Wales is both more likely to be imprisoned and to receive a longer sentence.
Prisons are perhaps the clearest example of how an England and Wales approach simply does not work. We need to build a system that fits our purpose and is suitable for the people of Wales. Devolving policing and justice for Wales must now be a priority if we are to do better for the people of Wales, and we will, of course, be arguing for that strongly. At the same time, we will also be arguing about the specific ways that we can improve the lives of the people of Wales with the powers that we  already have, because that is part of being ambitious. This includes the establishment of an economic crime unit for north Wales, dedicated to investigating fraud against the most vulnerable, and protecting those who are being increasingly exploited by fraud. That would include things such as implementing the victims’ code of practice and implementing changes to systems to provide a seamless service and support, so as to give victims increased confidence in coming forward with evidence. We will have a focus on reducing reoffending—by mainstreaming Checkpoint Cymru and the Early Action Together team, which relates to adverse childhood experiences, in the work of North Wales Police. We will also pledge, across Wales, to increase the capacity of our rural crime team to address rural criminality and wildlife crime, which is something that I am sure every Member here would agree should be a priority in Wales.
No matter what one’s position is on devolution, it is clear that designing policy on an England and Wales basis does not work at the moment. There is a chance that, in future, more policies will be designed without Wales’s specific needs taken into account—that irresistible urge to centralise powers here in Westminster.
We often hear about Brexit being a chance to bring power closer to the people, but I do fear, whatever the Conservatives say, that the reality will be the exact opposite. None the less, let us look to the future. This is Saint David’s Day. Let us look to our future and our role—all of us—in growing a stronger, more confident, more wealthy, more equitable Wales. That is what we can do here until we get the powers back home to do it properly. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. We should be able to get everybody in if Members keep their contributions to just under seven minutes. I would prefer Members to do that voluntarily, if possible.

Craig Williams: I will be mindful of that time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my constituency neighbour. I agree with much of what she said, although we often disagree on how to deliver what we want. I pay tribute to the two Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. It was a privilege to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), my constituency neighbour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis). It is truly delightful to have a flock, a team, a gang of Conservative Members from across Wales. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—it is a delight to see that tie come out at this time of year. I agree with much of what he said about the feeling of change in north, mid, south and west Wales. I will touch on that later.
At the start of the week, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and I were on the Wales Week London podcast. Much of the debate focused on what is great about Wales, but specifically what is great when people work together—Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, those in local authorities and those in the private sector. I pay particular tribute to Dan Langford  OBE for his work pulling together the Welsh Government, the UK Government and the private sector to put Wales on the map this week, in London and across the world. Wales Week now lasts for two weeks, and next year it will possibly be three. That growing passion for Wales is really taking flight. The more we can work together, the better—the private sector is captaining that movement—but it is something we have struggled to do in Wales; it would really be cause for celebrating St David’s Day.
I associate myself with the remarks made by most Members about the recent flooding across the UK, but especially in Wales—people would expect the Member for Montgomeryshire, which is the source of the Severn, to touch on flooding. I pay tribute to our farmers—they have not yet been mentioned—who throughout these crises have stood up and delivered for our communities yet again. It always amazes me how, with such little warning, they can protect their livestock and prevent them from islanding by getting them safely away from the floodplains in Montgomeryshire and across the UK. They have also looked after our roads and constituents, saving many of them in their beautiful farm vehicles as they drive across what at times looks like an ocean.
I want to touch on devolution in relation to flooding, because some of the tone of this debate has been amiss, particularly given the change that I felt for the first time on devolution. I am one of the most passionate advocates for strengthening the Welsh Assembly—a badge that does not always win me a huge number of friends—and I believe in making devolution work. While I have huge problems with the Welsh Government and with the managerial style that we have heard Labour Members talk about over the past 20 years, we really need to look at the way that cheap political points are being chucked around at a time of crisis.
I know that we will have an Opposition day debate next week, and we can have this out again then, but the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would passport funds, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is working with the First Minister. My constituents—and, I detect, constituents across Wales—are really getting annoyed at the rhetoric. I fear that unless those of us who care passionately about devolution work together, that change could mean looking at devolution, and I fear what that would mean.
I am reminded of the EU referendum, when many Labour Members of Parliament and Assembly Members were delighted to help campaign for the remain side in Cardiff—they looked at their constituency and thought, “Hmm, I’ll go and help in Cardiff today, because it’s showing 70% for remain.” We need to look at what is happening across Wales with this rhetoric of, “We don’t have the powers; we don’t have the money; it’s not our fault this time.” Twenty years on, if we do not take this seriously, and if both parties do not look at the competences and delivery, working with the Welsh Government, then next year that wind of change could mean that we look at the fundamental constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom.
Let me move on to a happier note: Montgomeryshire. What is great about this debate is that we can talk about the infrastructure that we require, want and campaign for in our constituencies. Montgomeryshire is a cross-border county. We look east and west, and we work with our neighbours. I am conscious that Members, from my  hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) onwards, do not want us to send any more water their way, but they certainly value the businesses and expertise—in public and private life—that go back and forth over the border.
I turn to the Montgomeryshire canal. I should actually say the Montgomery canal; I will receive countless letters and emails for having called it the Montgomeryshire canal. Volunteers have kept alive the vision of reconnecting our canal to the national network. They have put in a terrific amount of hours, physically rebuilding the canal, getting the technical documentation ready, and getting the grants and funding in place to reconnect Montgomery canal to the UK national network and to Llangollen canal in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South. I pay tribute to them for that work.
As well as the Montgomery canal, which we want to go from Newtown right out of Wales to the rest of the UK, there are people setting up and building their visions across Montgomeryshire, including organisations such as the Centre for Alternative Technology. We can argue about funding models and vehicles for delivering renewables, but looking at organisations such as the Montgomery canal, the Welshpool and Llanfair light railway and the Centre for Alternative Technology, one cannot help but admire the spirit of the people getting involved locally and those who travel from across the UK—and, indeed, the world—to help out and take part. In fact, such is the ambition of Montgomeryshire that the Welshpool and Llanfair light railway just lent one of our great steam trains to Taiwan; the growing global network of our heritage railways continues. But we do not have to look far to see what makes Wales stand out, and to understand its great tourism potential. Welshpool’s Powis castle, the canal and other aspects of the area really do put us on the map.
I am conscious that I should wind up, but I quickly want to mention a couple of issues on which we need to work together. The national development framework sets out where we should build our next tranche of wind and solar energy infrastructure. We need to work together to ensure that these frameworks and policies are right for our communities and for national grid connections. We need to ensure we do not overly concentrate that infrastructure on our beautiful rolling hills, or industrialise them, and so affect tourism. The scheme should not go near areas of tourism. I will end on that point about Governments and parties working together. If we are to change our energy mix and deliver the next phase of renewable energies, we need to get electricity out of Wales and connect it to the grid, while being mindful of the need to take our communities with us. Over-concentration will not work.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have nodded at me more than once, so I will sit down, having given that caution about devolution and been over-dramatic on occasion, but let me also say how great it is to be Welsh on  St David’s Day. Happy St David’s Day!

Chris Elmore: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). I fear that I am going to break the consensus on cross-party working—something that he knows that I am keen on—but I am afraid that I need to highlight some  of the inequalities as I see them, because they come within matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I wish all Members across the House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.
We are just two months into a new decade, and the start of a new decade should be a time to reflect on the past 10 years and think about the progress we have made. It is the aim of every Member of this House to ensure that, as the decade rolls on, the lives of the people in our communities improve, there are more chances for our children, better services for our families and an ever-increasing number of better, well-paid jobs, enabling people to live secure and satisfying lives, but it is not that simple, because the UK has had a decade of Tory rule at Westminster. We have had 10 years of relentless cuts and Tory disdain for communities such as mine. Sadly, my party’s failure to win the general election means that we are set for more of the same, or indeed worse, because behind the bluff and bluster of the Tories harping on in 2020 about levelling up our country, the Prime Minister and his now rather famous adviser are among the most divisive teams we have had in Downing Street since Mrs Thatcher—and we all know how that ended for Wales.
What is different now, though, is that since the advent of devolution in 1999, delivered by Tony Blair’s Labour Government, we have had a devolved Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. Over the past 10 years, they have strained every sinew to protect our communities from the brunt of austerity, but in the face of the savage cuts to funding from Westminster, there is only so much the Welsh Labour Government can do. I will outline a few areas for the Chancellor to focus on in his upcoming Budget, and a few of the things he could deliver in Wales, in return for a few Welsh cakes to go with his Yorkshire tea. Failing that, I am happy to drop the Welsh cakes off at No. 10 when Mr Cummings redrafts the Chancellor’s work.
First, I want to talk about infrastructure. Since Christmas, we have had talk of bridges to Ireland; HS2 was given the go-ahead; and dead cats about moving Government Departments across the country seem to have been flung about on a daily basis. One thing has been missing in this apparent funding frenzy: yet again, as has happened ever since the Tories came to power, we have had nothing —not even a crumb—for Wales. But should we even be surprised by this? The UK Government scrapped rail electrification to Swansea. They put to bed the idea of delivering the world’s first tidal lagoon in Swansea bay—although I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is U-turning on his predecessor’s decision on that—and they completely and utterly fail to give Wales fair funding to improve infrastructure.
Contrast this with the Welsh Labour Government, who are investing a whopping £5 billion in our rural rail network through Transport for Wales, and providing a £1.8 billion investment to ensure that all trains are replaced with new rolling stock by 2023. Half those trains will be built in Wales. This is bringing skilled job opportunities for workers across Wales and ensuring that we have a transport system that is fit for the future. Meanwhile, despite our having 11% of the track across England and Wales and 20% of the level crossings—yes, I am back on that complaint again—over the past  10 years Wales has received only 2% of the available funding from the UK Government. The Government’s great train robbery is a scandal and shows just how little the Conservatives care about investing in the future of the Welsh economy or the communities who support it.
Whether it is transport infrastructure, digital infrastructure or renewable energy infrastructure, the Tories are failing Wales at each and every turn. Looking to the economy more widely, Members across this House will be all too aware of the low pay crisis we face across too many of our industries.

Jonathan Edwards: The Silk commission identified the issue about rail infrastructure development. Following that, we had the so-called St David’s Day process, in which Labour and the Conservative party agreed to take measures on that recommendation out of the Wales Bill. The failure therefore falls on the hon. Gentleman’s party as well.

Chris Elmore: The failure falls on the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows that. His party has been in government as well. My party created devolution—something that Plaid failed miserably to do, despite all its years of campaigning for it.
Unemployment is at a historically low level in Wales, thanks to the hard work of the Welsh Labour Government, but sadly, for too many, this work is not paying. I am pleased that Welsh Labour is delivering on, and surpassing, our promise to create 100,000 all-age apprenticeships to give our young people skilled and well-paid jobs long into the future. It is also great to see Welsh Labour’s commitment to make Wales a fair work nation, which means that companies wanting Welsh Government support must sign an economic contract helping to boost the number of people who are being paid the real national living wage. What have we seen instead from the UK Government? A fake living wage that people under 25 cannot even be paid, a backs-turned approach to the future of our steel industry, and a “couldn’t care less” attitude to the universal credit crisis that has plunged thousands of people into poverty across Wales.
While the Prime Minister and Chancellor are busy making No. 10 and No. 11 a joint office, perhaps they could take just a moment—I plead with the Minister—to stop and think about what a grave impact their party’s policies have been having on communities in Wales since 2010. Ogmore cannot take another five years of the same old stale Tory policies, and he has heard that from those on his party’s Benches today. Ogmore needs a pay rise.
More widely, Wales needs a pay rise. The Welsh Government’s budget is around 5% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. If the Welsh budget had risen in line with the long-term trend of public expenditure, it would be £6 billion higher than it is today. That is around £1,800 per person. Just think what we could spend that on. It could build on the Welsh Government’s work to tackle homelessness; it could be pumped into local government, which has been pushed to breaking point because of Government austerity; and it could save lives in our NHS.
I ask the Minister to impress on the Chancellor the need for reinvestment in Wales, because levelling up our country is not about trying to buy the trust of the so-called red wall seats the Conservatives won in the north of England; it is about providing a fairer future  for everyone across our United Kingdom. I stand here as a proud Unionist; I will staunchly defend our Union while I am in this place and long into the future, but under this Tory Government, Wales is too much of a tick-box exercise that does not even matter; the box often does not get ticked at all. The people of Wales do matter. I plead with the Minister to reverse these 10 years of austerity and start investing in Wales.

Rob Roberts: Celebrated Welsh poet T.H. Parry-Williams wrote in his famous work “Hon”:
“Beth yw’r ots gennyf i am Gymru? Damwain a hap
Yw fy mod yn ei libart yn byw. Nid yw hon ar fap
Yn ddim byd ond cilcyn o ddaear mewn cilfach gefn,
Ac yn dipyn o boendod i’r rhai sy’n credu mewn trefn.”
Unfortunately, that is sometimes how the people of Wales think. The translation of the words, which does not quite encapsulate the feeling of the piece, is:
“What do I care of Wales? It is by accident and chance
That I am living here freely. She isn’t on a map
And is nothing but a piece of land in a hidden creek,
And a bit of a nuisance to those who believe in order.”
In the rest of the poem, Parry-Williams was searching for the “Welsh way”, questioning the relevance of Welsh culture in society and the blaming of the country’s problems on the English, when in fact sometimes our problems can be closer to home and generated by ourselves.
What a neat segue into devolution that is! Who would have thought that this theme would be repeated so often at the Senedd in Cardiff? Every week at First Minister’s questions and other departmental questions, inquiries are made about transport services in Wales, where the providers are asked to make changes such as making it possible to get from Holyhead to Cardiff in four hours on the train, but they can only do so by cutting out a raft of local stations from the programme, and they then have to take the complaints imposed on them by the requirements of the Welsh Government. Inquiries are made about educational standards in Wales, where our hard-working teachers are asked to do more with less and feel more disenfranchised and unsupported. Inquiries are also made about health in Wales, where four out of the seven health boards are in special measures or have some form of targeted intervention, with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in north Wales having been in that state for almost five years. Our health boards have some of the most dedicated and caring professionals, who come in every day to fight fires and battle against a system at breaking point.
Every week, when those questions are asked in the Senedd, there is only one answer from the First Minister and his colleagues: “Westminster doesn’t send us enough money.” That is the stock response every time, yet for every £1 spent on the NHS in England, there is around 15% more available to be spent on the NHS in Wales—it is just poorly spent and targeted in the wrong ways. T.H. Parry-Williams was right: we cannot just keep blaming the English for all our ills. We need to look closer to home.
Like my right hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), I was amazed during the campaign just how few people I spoke to on the doorstep realised which  services are devolved and which are not. A lot of people complained to me about the health service in north Wales without realising that it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. A&E waiting times have been the worst on record for two months in a row, and in education, 2019 GCSE results were no better than in 2007, but the number of people who continually blame Westminster for those challenges is staggering. I consider it very important over the next 14 months, in the run-up to the Welsh elections in May 2021, to highlight to people just who is responsible for what, so that their frustrations—and, indeed, occasional praise—can be directed to the appropriate places.
The Wales Act 2017 delivered a clearer and more stable devolution settlement for Wales by devolving important powers to the Senedd on energy, transport and local government. At the 2018 Budget, the UK Government announced plans to increase the Welsh Government’s budget by £1.2 billion, including a 5% Barnett boost of £67 million over the next five years. Subsequently, at the September 2019 spending round, the Government increased funding for the Welsh Government by a further £600 million. They cannot keep complaining that they do not have enough funding; they just need to make better choices.
There are still issues and problems with the funding formula for Wales. The Barnett formula—that short-term measure designed in 1978—is not fit for purpose and needs wholesale reform. Demographics are the key, and they are not properly considered under Barnett. By way of example, my constituency of Delyn has a median age of 46 compared with a median age of 40 across  the rest of the UK, and 23% of the population are over 65 compared with 18% nationally. These figures may not seem hugely substantial, but they are statistically significant, as they indicate the ageing population in my constituency, which therefore has an increased need for health and social care. The calculation of funding based on headcount, which does not take into account different needs or costs, is flawed, and that should be addressed as a priority.
Devolution is here to stay and is not going away. There are many in north Wales who feel it has never worked: funding coming from Cardiff is just as detached from the north as it was when it came from Westminster, and we have just switched one funding body for another, while adding an extra level of governance and cost in the middle. In many ways, they are right, but let us be very clear: it does not need to be that way. The calls for the abolition of the Senedd are not fair and are unreasonable. Honestly, I used to be one of those who called for its abolition, and then my mind was changed by hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who, sadly, is no longer in his place.
If the Labour party had won the election here in December, nobody would have been calling for the abolition of Parliament just because there was a useless party in charge—nothing of the sort. They would just have campaigned harder next time and highlighted the weaknesses in that Administration, and so it is with us. We need to get over the fact that we do not like it and feel that it is not working, and recognise that it is not that the structure does not work, but that the problem lies with the party in control of the structure.
In closing, I urge my constituents and the wider society across Wales to recognise that these will be the issues next May, and to make sure they install a Welsh Government who are focused on levelling up across the whole country, remembering that a huge amount of Wales exists if they happen to look north of Newport.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups will begin at 4.40 pm, and seven Members are wishing to catch my eye, so I am sure they can do the maths. Please be generous to your colleagues, starting with Alex Davies-Jones.

Alex Davies-Jones: Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). Although we do not share a lot of common interests, we do share a love of Welsh poetry and a dislike of the Barnett formula.
Dydd Gŵyl Dewi—St David’s Day—is an important day for everyone in Wales, and I wish everyone a very happy St David’s Day for this weekend. I will be spending the weekend celebrating with a paned and a welsh cake or two, and I also look forward to celebrating with my son for his first St David’s Day. It will come as no surprise to colleagues that I am extremely proud to be Welsh, and the Welsh valleys do truly run through my veins. I am Ponty born and bred: I was born in Church Village in my constituency, and I spent my early years training to be an air cadet in Pontyclun. I sang in the National Youth Choir of Wales, and my teen years were spent socialising with friends at the Rhondda Bowl in Tonyrefail.
We have so much to celebrate in Wales, including our proud musical heritage and our rugby teams’ prowess—as others have done, I will quickly move past the scores last weekend—yet there is so much more to home in Wales than the traditional stereotypes may suggest. In recent weeks, it has become clear that Wales really does not receive its fair share of funding from this Government. I hope colleagues will indulge me as I briefly touch on the Barnett funding, which we have just heard about, and on why I believe that the recent events, such as the unprecedented flooding in my constituency, are simply more evidence that Barnett consequentials are no longer fit for purpose.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee published its assessment of the Barnett formula and found that there is a lack of transparency about how funding is allocated. I find it utterly staggering that the formula is not set out in law, but is instead up to interpretation by the Treasury. This clearly outdated method left spending per head in Wales last year at the lowest of the devolved nations, and I truly believe that my constituents and the people of Wales deserve better. The Welsh Labour Government are doing some fantastic and pioneering work, yet with not enough funding. I specifically want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleagues in the Senedd, who are leading the way on a range of issues from climate change to investments in new construction technologies to help with the apparent housing crisis.
The effects of Storm Dennis and the subsequent flooding that hit Pontypridd and the wider Rhondda Cynon Taf area just over a week ago are a key example of where the UK Government’s funding for Wales is falling short. The floods in my community were completely unprecedented. The River Taf’s levels rose to over a metre above all previous records, and the flood defences that were in place were simply unable to cope. I would like to pay tribute to all the hundreds of volunteers and people from across our communities who have pulled together to help in these awful circumstances. We have raised considerable amounts of money, and many have donated clothing or food to help others. That is what our communities in Wales do. We are always there for each other when times are hard, and we will always continue to be there.
I am extremely proud of how our local authority and First Minister responded to the crisis in my community. Others may say that we are making cheap political points, but I would argue that this situation basically shows that the UK Government do not care about Wales. The Prime Minister’s absence last week was utterly staggering. It is clear that the Barnett formula is simply not designed to cope with the financial impact of natural disasters such as this, and that problem affects all of us in Wales, including colleagues across the House. The Barnett formula requires urgent attention, and I hope Ministers will do all they can to find a way forward—a way forward for Wales.

Stephen Kinnock: It is such a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She has made a real impact since coming to Parliament some months ago, and she is also in the process of organising the Welsh parliamentary Labour party social. That is an excellent role and a task for which she is perfectly qualified, and I am glad she has taken it on.
I want to look forward to this year, because I think 2020 promises to be truly memorable. That is not because it will be the first year of this Tory Government—far from it—but because having waited 58 years to reach a major tournament in 2016, the Welsh football team, just like a London bus, is now back at the Euros. Let us cast our minds back to 2016—what a summer that was! Great memories. Who can forget Gareth Bale’s free kicks against Slovakia and particularly England, or Hal Robson-Kanu’s Cruyff turn in the comeback win over Belgium, en route to the semi-finals? Euro 2020 may be even more extraordinary and unforgettable—I certainly hope so.
The summer of 2016 typified what it means to be Welsh: a proud nation, punching above its weight, with everybody coming together. Indeed, that was summed up by the team’s motto, “Together Stronger”, and over past few weeks, as Wales has been buffeted by truly terrible weather—first Storm Ciara, and then Storm Dennis—“Together Stronger” has felt appropriate. More than a month’s worth of rain fell in just 48 hours, and despite being left to fend for ourselves as usual by the part-time Prime Minister and the Tory Government, communities across Wales stepped up to the plate. I pay tribute to them, and to our wonderful emergency services and brilliant council workforces who have worked tirelessly in these challenging circumstances.
We have always been tough and resilient in Wales, but we are experiencing more and more extreme weather, and such events bring into sharper focus the need to do more to address the climate and environmental crisis that we face. Out of every crisis should come an opportunity—an opportunity for Britain to lead the world in renewable energies. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon would have provided heat to thousands of homes, using clean, green, reliable and sustainable energy, and saving almost 0.25 million tonnes of carbon during each year of its operation. If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they should reconsider that opportunity and back that game changer for the industry. What an opportunity to “level up” the country, as the Prime Minister likes to put it, by putting the Swansea bay area at the forefront of that clean, green, energy technology.
In reality, while the Tory Government talk a good game on caring about Wales, they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. Just look at rail electrification to Swansea. In 2016, the then Secretary of State for Wales gave me a categorical commitment on national TV to electrify the line to Swansea. It was even a Tory manifesto commitment in 2017, but it has fallen foul of one of those famous, or perhaps I should say infamous, Tory U-turns. The entire budget for electrifying the main line to Swansea would be less than 1% of the vast sums that will be spent on High Speed 2. Will the Secretary of State do what his predecessors have failed to do, and stand up for Wales by committing to electrify the main line to Swansea?
This is not just about rail infrastructure. For decades, wealth, power, opportunity and talent have been agglomerating in our major cities at the expense of industrial, rural and coastal areas. To truly rebalance our economy, or level up as the Government like to say, we need the Government to back a modern manufacturing renaissance, starting in places like Aberavon. Part of the package must be a sector deal for steel. Steel is a 21st-century industry and is integral to our everyday lives—to transport, to infrastructure and to our defence industry. It underpins our entire manufacturing base. HS2 will use 2 million tonnes of steel and is a real opportunity for the Government to back British steel through a patriotic approach to procurement. The Government need to strike a sector deal for steel if they are going to foster growth. Automotive, aerospace and construction all have sector deals. Why does the steel industry not have one? Action on energy prices is essential. UK steelmakers are paying prices that are double those of our German competitors and 50% higher than in France. UK steelmakers are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
Industrial towns need clarity on replacing EU funding. The UK shared prosperity fund—I am proud to chair the all-party group—is set to replace EU funding, but it has taken on near mythical status. What has happened to the promised consultation? Everything about the fund is still to be worked out and the clock is ticking down every day towards 1 January 2021. What is certain is that the Government must not use the fund to row back on the devolution settlement or to short-change communities like Port Talbot by a sleight of hand in Westminster. The Government must guarantee not  a penny less and not a power lost. It is the duty of  the Secretary of State to be a strong voice for Wales  on this issue.
The Welsh Government must also give Wales a voice in the EU trade negotiations. The First Minister today made clear that the Government’s negotiating position would almost certainly result in a loss of jobs in Wales and a diminishment of livelihoods. He made it clear that there has been no consultation on the UK’s negotiating mandate and that we are not represented in the talks.
Labour is a proud party of devolution, but devolution only works if the UK Government respect the devolution principle. The Welsh Government have suffered a decade of diminishing budgets. Even with the previous Chancellor’s extra £600 million for Wales, the Welsh Government’s budget for 2021 will be £300 million lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. As a result, my council, Neath Port Talbot Council, has had to remove more than £80 million from its budget since 2010 and is expected to find a further £42 million in cuts between now and 2023. Despite the sterling efforts of the Welsh Government and Welsh councils to shield our communities from the worst of the cuts, my constituents have suffered due to the Conservatives’ dismissive attitude towards Wales. They are quick to devolve blame, slow to devolve resources. The first step must be to junk the Barnett formula and replace it with a fair funding formula for Wales.
This year marks 35 years since the end of the miners’ strike, which will be marked in mining communities across Wales and in coalfield communities across the UK. During the strike, we saw the true meaning of community spirit. That has not left us and it never will. As the grandson of a coalminer, I know that that never-say-die attitude and commitment to local community has been passed down through the generations. It is with that spirit that I will continue to fight for Aberavon in Westminster. My Aberavon constituents deserve better than what is being offered by the current UK Government. They need a Government who deliver on their promises to Wales and recognise the potential of our fantastic, vibrant and talented communities. We in Wales know that together we are stronger. It is high time that the Government realised that, too. Diolch, and happy St David’s Day.

Beth Winter: Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd, am y cyfle i siarad yn y ddadl y prynhawn yma. Mae e’n gyfle pwysig i ni drafod materion o bwys i ni fel Aelodau Seneddol o Gymru. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today, as it is an important opportunity to deal with matters of importance to us as Welsh MPs.
Two recent events that have affected my particular constituency, Cynon Valley, and the local authority area of Rhondda Cynon Taff, have given me food for thought on a more general level. One has obviously been the devastating floods we have suffered and the other is the future of services in one of our local hospitals, the Royal Glam—the Royal Glamorgan Hospital.
The flooding has been a tragedy for individuals, with over 650 homes and 500 businesses seriously affected, roads and bridges damaged and individual lives traumatised. I have been in tears seeing how people have lost so much that was precious to them. I also pay tribute to all the local residents, councillors, the fire services and the First Minister for the work that they have done.
Dealing with the aftermath of that event is going to be hard on an individual constituent level and on a wider scale, in terms of local authorities and the Welsh Government having to deal with the immediate and longer-term consequences of what has happened. However, this is happening after 10 years of Tory austerity policies and the underfunding of the Welsh Government since the Barnett formula was set up. Our Welsh Government get less money than they did 10 years ago. My local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taff, lost £90 million in funding over the last years of Tory austerity policies, but if I say that, I am accused of playing politics with the flooding. I am not ashamed of or going to shy away from the reality of inadequate funding—the underfunding —of Wales over these years of Tory Government. It is not me who is playing politics with the lives of the people of RCT; the Tories have done that with their policy of austerity. That was their political choice.
If that argument does not work, the Tories come back with, “Ah, but flood defences, or the health service, are devolved—nothing to do with us folks”. Rubbish—neu swbriel yn Cymraeg! Yes, those services are devolved and the Welsh Government take their responsibility seriously, with progressive policies to combat climate change and on free prescriptions, and having introduced organ donation changes seven years before that was considered in England. But who holds the purse strings? Westminster, and our health and social care system throughout the United Kingdom is straining to survive, and we will strain even further to do so if the immigration policies being proposed get through. All this is happening against the backdrop of Wales being one of the poorest areas of the United Kingdom, where people have to use food banks to manage and where benefit cuts mean that families must decide whether to eat or heat their homes. This is unacceptable.
My final thought is that we need to make our politics here in Westminster relevant to the people we represent. This argument about devolved services is used by the Tory Government to wash their hands of their responsibility and we need to make it clear that we will not let that happen. One of my grandfathers was a miner and the other was a steelworker. What little they had, they earned by hard work. They did not make millions by speculating on the stock exchange. We have a responsibility to the people of Wales at every turn to argue that the wealth that exists in this country, much of which was created by them, needs to be shared out so that we reverse the position where 10% of the population owns 45% of the wealth. As I said in my maiden speech, we need state intervention to help our people. It has helped wealth and privilege for far too long. A alla i orffen trwy ddymuno Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb? Diolch yn fawr.

Wendy Chamberlain: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate ahead of St David’s Day this Sunday. The designers of this place were very much aware of the significance of a reminder of who we are and our story. Central Lobby is adorned with beautiful mosaics of the patron saints of the four parts of this United Kingdom. To get from Central Lobby to the Chamber, Members pass underneath the mosaic  of St David. One of my Scottish colleagues, who shall remain nameless, pointed out to me that the mosaic of St Andrew sits above the route to the bars.
Coming from Scotland, I am used to our patron saint’s day being a national holiday. I think it is something to be celebrated and I do not understand why we cannot make St David’s Day a national holiday in Wales. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, commended the increased prominence of St David’s Day, so hopefully he and Government Members would support the call for the Government to give the Welsh Government the power to do just that.
Last weekend, I attended the These Islands conference in Newcastle and contributed to a panel on the work of the Constitution Reform Group, members of which included the CRG member, Carwyn Jones, the former Welsh First Minister. We need to examine the powers that have and have not been devolved to the Welsh Government and whether the current arrangements deliver the best outcomes for the people of Wales. Justice is not currently devolved in Wales, unlike in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Commission on Justice in Wales, which was set up by Carwyn Jones when he was First Minister, was designed to review the operation of the Welsh justice system.
The report of the Commission on Justice in Wales was unequivocal. It said that the justice system should be devolved for Wales. That was the evidence-based finding of an independent commission chaired by a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. I come from a policing background in Scotland, where these matters are devolved, and although I have concerns about the structure of Police Scotland, which are being highlighted in the Scottish Parliament today, I believe that the Welsh Government should have the same devolved oversight of their police service. There are clear difficulties in managing the different governance arrangements of different public services, and ultimately those difficulties fail the people of Wales. I call on the Government to engage properly with the report and not to reject it outright, as they appeared to do in the recent Westminster Hall debate secured by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The findings of that impartial report should be implemented and Welsh devolution arrangements in this area be brought into alignment with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Ahead of St David’s Day, I pay tribute to my Welsh Liberal Democrat colleagues, in particular their leader Jane Dodds, the former Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire. It is a matter of personal sadness that Jane and I did not have the opportunity to sit together on these Benches, and it was a privilege to campaign with her last year in the villages dotting the Wales-England border. In her brief tenure as an MP, she fought on behalf of her constituents to stop a no-deal Brexit, which would have been damaging to the communities she represented. I am confident that she will return to this House in the future.
I know that Jane has been visiting those affected by the recent flooding caused by Storms Ciara and Dennis, and it is on that subject that I will make my final remarks. Throughout this week, we have heard from Members in all parts of the House about how flooding has affected their constituents. The impact in Wales has  been particularly severe, with areas that have no history of flooding experiencing it for the first time. I therefore find it deeply disappointing that the Prime Minister has not visited and listened to the people whose homes, workplaces and lives have been devastated. Visible leadership is an obligation, whether you are seeking votes at the time or not. I have been heartened by reports of communities coming together in response to flooding. The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have set up crowdfunding pages, and Welsh rugby international George North donated a number of personal items to raise money for Lydney rugby club in Gloucestershire, which demonstrates the close connections and bonds of friendship that exist across the border of England and Wales. In that spirit of friendship, I conclude by wishing all in this place a happy St David’s Day this Sunday, and say “Sláinte!” to all those raising a glass in toast to the Welsh patron saint.

Carolyn Harris: As ever, it is a huge pleasure to speak in today’s debate on Welsh affairs, in honour of which I sound as if am impersonating Bonnie Tyler.
As deputy leader of the Welsh Labour party, I thank every candidate who put their head above the parapet and stood as a candidate in Wales in the last general election, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). It is not easy to stand in an election, and it was especially difficult at the last election because of the unpleasant atmosphere that, sadly, characterised the campaign, but together Welsh Labour took our strong campaign into the communities up and down Wales in very challenging circumstances. Although I was and continue to be devastated by the result of the election, I remain immensely proud to be the deputy leader of a party I love, and I have no doubt that our strong Welsh Labour team will bounce back. I am confident that we can unite and show that another future is possible as we campaign together ahead of next year’s Assembly elections.
The St David’s Day debate is always an important opportunity to showcase what we love about Wales, as well as to shine a light on the challenges facing us in the future. Far too often, what happens in Wales goes under the radar. Put simply, to have one debate a year is to pay lip service, at best. Wales deserves far, far more. Labour Members know the truth: where Welsh Labour leads, others follow. In so many areas, Welsh Labour policies are improving the lives of people across Wales and setting the bar for the rest of the United Kingdom. Presumed consent organ donation has been saving lives in Wales since 2015. Hospital car park charges were scrapped by the Welsh Government in 2018. Social housing stocks plummeted, so right to buy was scrapped by Welsh Labour in 2018. Nursing bursaries were scrapped across England, but in Wales, Welsh Labour protected them to invest in the future of the NHS and the workforce.
Schools in England were stripped of funding, with children forced to learn in crumbling buildings devoid of resources. Welsh Labour delivered our most ambitious housing programme in history, giving pupils across Wales a 21st-century education in new buildings with state-of-the-art facilities. The Conservative Government  scrapped rail electrification, but Welsh Labour is investing £5 billion, which is making a difference even with the problems posed by a backlog of legacy issues. We have already talked about the tidal lagoon, and the House will know my feelings about that.
While the Conservative Government push more families into poverty through universal credit, Welsh Labour is delivering the most generous childcare offer for working families anywhere in the UK. When I called for a children’s funeral fund, it was the Welsh Government who responded almost immediately, although I am grateful to the UK Government for following suit eventually.
The truth is that when it comes to standing up for Wales—against the background of Plaid Cymru’s reborn obsession with independence, which diverts attention from the pressing challenges that our communities face, with dogma always triumphing over delivery—it is Welsh Labour that delivers. All too often, however, those outside Wales, and far too many in it, could be forgiven for not knowing much about that. In far too much of our political discourse and in our media, both public service and privately owned, what happens in Wales stays in Wales; or sometimes, apparently, it does not happen at all.
This is not the disgraceful “fake news” bandwagon that has poisoned so much of our public debate. This is not me pointing the finger at politicians from across the UK. This is about my wish to end the blasé and too frequent approach of too many people in this place, in the media and in UK public life who are not discussing or reporting effectively on politics in Wales.
How many Members have heard Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and forget about devolution when it suits them? How many times have we, as a UK Labour party, repeatedly missed opportunities to shout loudly and proudly about the achievements of our party in the only nation of the UK where we still have a Labour Government? How many times have the Government—and all too often, sadly, the Opposition of late—announced plans for “England and Wales” which are clearly for England only? How many times have we seen news articles circulate online about policy areas that are fully or partially devolved, making zero—literally zero—reference to the Welsh Labour Government? How often does the “Today” programme, or the front pages of the newspapers, or the discussions on our political panel shows, give Wales, our Government and our civic society the respect that they deserve? Hardly ever, and it makes my blood boil. We have to do much, much better.
So I am throwing down the gauntlet as ballots go out in this crucial Labour leadership contest, which is responsible for my loss of voice. Whoever the next UK Labour leader is—and yes, I will happily declare an interest—will need to bang the drum for Labour in Wales, for Wales in Labour, and, quite simply, for Wales. I am fed up with people spending so much time debating whether we should be proud of the last Labour Government, while apparently forgetting to take seriously the record of a Labour Government who we are still running to this day. Our UK and our Welsh media have a role to play as well: to hold to account, to expose failures where they exist, and to hold our collective feet to the flames.
It is about time that our national broadcasters and national newspapers acknowledged that Welsh government exists, and should get a look in from time to time. How many  times, on big, UK-wide issues, do we hear from Nicola Sturgeon but not from Mark Drakeford? How many times do we hear about the financial impact of something on Scotland, but not about its impact on Wales? If we are truly to be a country of four nations, and if we are to prove that we value our precious and threatened Union, we need this to start being reflected in our national debate.
We should not be the “And finally” segment at the end of “News at Ten”. We never get an opportunity to see Wales on a national platform, and it really is pitiful. I am not looking at this through the lens of narrow party self-interest. The way we see our media, particularly our broadcast media, being degraded by the trolls on social media and the special advisers in Downing Street, should make us take back a step back and pause for thought. Our free and crusading media, which I work with, respect and value, is the envy of much of the word and often a courageous force for good. That is why it infuriates me when they so often ignore one of the most important parts—to me—of the United Kingdom.
I want Wales to be centre stage, and I want a UK Labour leader who is committed to putting us there. I want us to celebrate and value Wales every day in this Chamber, not just for three hours once a year. We need to do better. I do not want to stand here in a year’s time trumpeting achievements no one had heard about to a Press Gallery that treats this debate like a primary school bring-your-toys-to-school day. I want us to do better and I am marking the homework. I am saying that we must do better. We should do better. We have to do better.

Geraint Davies: In the brief time available, I want to touch on the need for support for Wales in terms of both climate change and Brexit. In relation to climate change, we are all aware of the catastrophic impacts of flooding in Pontypridd and Rhondda Cynon Taf. As the former head of flood risk management across Wales with executive power to invest in flood defences, I know that the needs of Wales are dictated by its topography. The steep sloping valleys give rise to fast flash flooding, and over time climate change is increasing that risk. We also have the legacy of coal tips. Meanwhile on our coasts, in certain parts of north Wales and also in Swansea, there is a great deal of tidal flood risk, which is also increasing as a result of climate change.
The UK Government need to respect the fact that those things need to be sorted out sooner rather than later, and that they are not linked to our population or to the Barnett formula. They are linked to the actual risk; the number of people living in an area is just a fluke. We need that money now. I very much hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will take that forward as a matter of great urgency because there is great risk as the weather continues to deteriorate.
In relation to Brexit, Wales has benefited from convergence funding, particularly in the valleys and in south and west Wales, and it is important, given that that funding has been awarded on the basis of need, that we get replication of the finance. I respect the  fact that people might argue about value for money and the targeting of the funding, but the Secretary of State needs to stand up for Wales. We need that money in Wales, and if we get it, we can then have an argument about where it should be spent, rather than having an argument about how it should be spent and ending up with less money. For example, Swansea University is doubling in size by investing in the Bay campus. It is a massive engine for economic growth, and it has a great need for those stimuli.
Speaking of Swansea naturally leads me to talk about the railways. We were promised rail electrification, which would have put us on the pan-European network, with all the advantages that would have for business communications, industry and exports, but that was denied us. In addition, Network Rail took out an extra £1 billion, and we now face HS2, which will get between £80 billion and £100 billion of investment. That will mean it will take one hour and 10 minutes to get from London to Manchester instead of two hours and 10 minutes, but it will still take three hours to get to Swansea. This is a problem. We need to think about a strategic plan that will link Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, which have a population of 3 million people—the same number of people as Manchester and Leeds. The difference is that Manchester and Leeds have connectivity six times an hour, and we have it once an hour. We need to make that regional economic cluster work for us.
In the short term, Great Western Railway has already changed the timetable, so instead of having two trains an hour out of Swansea that go to Paddington, one changing at Cardiff on the Manchester Piccadilly route, we now have only one. Instead of leaving at 28 minutes past, it now leaves at 23 minutes past, meaning that people cannot connect at Cardiff. If someone randomly arrives at Swansea station, the average wait is now half an hour instead of a quarter of an hour. To reduce a waiting time by quarter of an hour would normally cost hundreds of billions of pounds, but the alternative in the short term would be for the Secretary of State to write to Great Western Railway and tell it to look again at the timetables, so that we can get connectivity with Transport for Wales and have not only two trains an hour out of Swansea, but two trains out of Paddington to Swansea to encourage inward investment. It is a simple thing that would not cost much, so I urge the Secretary of State to get on with it.
On trade deals and our relationship with Europe, it has been mentioned that 60% of our trade is with the EU. Whether someone is producing lamb, steel, cars or aerospace products, frictionless trade is massively important. It is all very well the Prime Minister saying, “It’ll all be all right on the night. It is all about our sovereignty,” but it is not all about sovereignty; it is all about people’s jobs, livelihoods and future. The people who voted to leave the EU did not vote to leave their jobs.
Finally, I am reassured to a limited extent that the Secretary of State is again using warm words about the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and, indeed, the lagoon in north Wales. Climate change is really hitting us for six. We know that 80% of fossil fuels cannot be used if we are to avoid irreversible climate change, and the spot price of oil is deflated due to excess production and fracking, which produces enormous amounts of excess methane that is making climate change even worse.  Fossil fuel companies are basically sitting on stranded assets, and the financial markets will belatedly move out of that sector, so we need to invest now in green, climate change-compatible energy projects, such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.

Jessica Morden: I will attempt to condense my speech in the brief time available. I obviously want to echo what other hon. Members have said about the terrible flooding that has taken place in communities across south Wales. Newport East was fortunate not to be directly impacted, although nearby Monmouthshire was, and we sympathise and stand in solidarity with those whose homes and businesses were affected. I thank all the emergency services and everyone who helped.
We have had difficult news again this week for the Orb, with Tata announcing that no suitable buyer has been found for the steelworks. Hon. Members may know that the site was mothballed before Christmas, and Tata is now considering offers to use it for other purposes. Fewer workplaces are more ingrained in the history of Newport than the Orb, and I have spoken at great length about its history, but it also had a fantastic future as the only producer of electrical steels in the UK. With investment, it could have played its part in the electric vehicle revolution and electrification generally, so this is a huge shame. We went to the Government for help, and the Welsh Government did what they could, but help was not forthcoming. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who said that we need far more action than warm words from the Government on steel if the industrial strategy is to mean anything.
Given that today has been a time for maiden speeches, I felt the need to renew my vows and talk at great length about the brilliant things going on in Newport, but there is not much time to do that. However, the CAF railway factory in Newport was officially opened by the Prince of Wales last week. It has the capacity to provide trains for HS2, so I hope that Ministers take that on board, because we would really appreciate it. I fully support the excellent “We’re Backing Newport” campaign launched by the South Wales Argus to promote our city as a great place to live, work and bring up a family, which I know that because I am bringing up my own family there.
Brilliant opportunities are coming to Newport. It is the ninth-fastest growing city in the UK. We have experienced the fourth highest rise in property prices. We have the international convention centre and amazing things going on in the city centre, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). We have had help from the Welsh Government, and Newport City Council has a new visionary leader in Jane Mudd, who is doing a fantastic job.
It is not all about urban regeneration either. We have the fantastic RSPB Newport wetlands, which will feature on BBC “Countryfile” on St David’s Day, so please watch that. Lots of great things are going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned colleagues who, since the general election, are no longer with us for a variety of reasons. They played   a fantastic role in this place and their work will continue. I, for one, have inherited the all-party mindfulness group from Chris Ruane. We will continue with that and with Madeleine Moon’s campaign to scrap the six-month rule for those with terminal illnesses, on which the Government have been silent—we need to press further on that.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is a privilege to close this debate. Of course I wish all hon. Members a happy St David’s Day.
I also wish the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), well. Today is his long-awaited and long-anticipated Dispatch Box debut in a St David’s Day debate. By my count, he is the ninth Under-Secretary of State for Wales since 2010. I am sure he will support my argument that the revolving door approach to Wales Office Ministers now has to stop.
I am grateful for all the contributions today. I wish the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) well in his role as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on his maiden speech. All of us who grew up in south Wales are familiar with the beauty of Rest bay, and he spoke well about the importance of the armed forces to his constituency. He also paid an entirely appropriate tribute to his predecessor, Madeleine Moon, whose fantastic campaigning on mental health and motor neurone disease and, indeed, her achievement as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly gained her respect on both sides of the House.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who spoke with his usual authority and erudition both on the floods and on the wider issues of the Welsh economy.
I pay tribute to the second maiden speech of the day, made by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). I was interested to hear about his musical work for those with dementia and Alzheimer’s, and I send my condolences on the unexpected death of his mother in January. He, too, paid a very appropriate tribute to his predecessor, Susan Elan Jones. I entirely share his view about her strong sense of integrity and care for others, which brought so much to this House during her time here.
My thanks go too to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). He and I attended the same school in Pontypool. He was the first MP from that school and I was the second. When he says he is now the Welsh Father of the House, I guess I will have to accept that he has beaten me to another title. He made a powerful contribution on public sector broadcasting, which will certainly be an issue in this Parliament.
My thanks go also to the right hon. Members for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for their contributions and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) on his second coming to this House. I certainly agree with what he says about the efforts of our farmers in recent days.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who spoke extraordinarily powerfully about the impact of the UK Government over the past 10 years. He also reminded us that of course it was a Labour Government who first brought devolution to Wales.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) spoke well about Welsh culture in society. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and it is clearly a very special St David’s Day for her this year as it is her son’s first one. She spoke powerfully about the proud musical and sporting heritage not just of Pontypridd but of the Welsh nation.
I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for the Welsh football team, and I very much hope that 2020 will be a repeat of the summer of 2016. I pay tribute to his work on the all-party parliamentary group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which will be looking at post-Brexit structural funding for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) spoke passionately about the politics of austerity. Like hers, my grandfathers were both miners, and the industrial heritage of south Wales is a timely reminder that we always achieve more together than we achieve alone.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her contribution and for her work as deputy leader of Welsh Labour. Nobody could ever accuse her of not shouting loudly and proudly about Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) spoke powerfully and passionately about the need for urgent action on climate change, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) was able to make a contribution, particularly on steel, to which I shall return in a moment.
The impact of flooding on our communities, which is the backdrop to this debate, has been devastating. Our thoughts are with those families who have lost everything. As the water recedes and the national media interest fades, the human cost will remain, as will the damage to the Welsh economy. The Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has acted quickly and decisively. It is not a cheap political point to say that the Prime Minister is not just a party leader, but the national leader; he is the Prime Minister, and at times of crisis above all, it is for those who hold that office to show leadership to the communities affected. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister simply has not done that.
In the Prime Minister’s absence, our communities certainly have shown their extraordinary resilience, of which we can all be proud. I pay tribute to all my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Pontypridd, for Ogmore and for Cynon Valley, who have shown that leadership in their communities. I also pay tribute to the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Andrew Morgan, and to all the council workers and emergency workers who have done us proud in recent weeks.
At this moment, as we leave the European Union, it is also so important to stand up for the manufacturing sector in Wales, particularly the steel industry. I was sad  to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East said about the Orb steelworks, which was mothballed before Christmas; it now seems that it will not be used by the steel industry at all. That is a good example of why we need better long-term planning. The Government are committed to a transition to electric vehicles by 2035, yet this is happening to the Orb plant, which could have provided an end-to-end supply chain for the electric vehicles industry. We would then not have had to import this kind of steel. It is crucial that the Government step up and support our steel industry.
We have heard about the go-ahead for HS2. This is a timely moment to revisit the procurement rules. I hope that on every big project in the UK, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will push for the maximum use of UK steel. Today the mandate for the trade talks was published; if there are to be jobs and growth in that sector, it is vital that we ensure that our manufacturing sector does not face tariffs in accessing the single market, and that regulatory alignment remains. It is also vital that the shared prosperity fund ensures that none of our communities loses out, with not a power or a penny lost.
On all these issues, we are asking the UK Government to step up to the plate. Let us not forget that devolution is about partnership. Where the Welsh Government lead the way, the UK Government need to follow. We have heard so many times in this debate in the past 10 years about the scale of austerity cuts in Wales; we can see that, but none the less, the Welsh Government have sought to deliver for our people. They have funded hundreds of police community support officers. Wales was the only part of the UK recently to see improvement in all three programme for international student assessment scores—reading, maths and science.
I have heard a lot about the Welsh NHS today, but health spending per person is 6% higher in Wales than it is in England. I have been pleased to see that Wales has led the way with a single cancer pathway, meaning that all suspected cancers are treated the same. Wales was the first nation in Europe to legislate for safe nursing staffing levels, and it has led the way on organ donation. On the environment, Wales has the best rates of domestic recycling in the UK and has banned fracking, and it has produced the leading Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, putting the interests of future generations first, with sustainability at the heart of policy. As we talk about generations of the future, it is fitting to recall that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the vote in the next Senedd elections. Ultimately, though, it is for the UK Government, working with the Welsh Government, to deliver for the Welsh people.
We have had many excellent contributions from Members of all parties on many, many issues. The Labour Government in Wales have continued to invest in our communities, in health and in our schools, seeking to advance the lives of our constituents. My message to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales is that the UK Government have to step up and do the same.

David Davies: I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate. I will do my utmost to try to address as many of those contributions as possible.
I thank my friend and constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for his comments. We may disagree on rather a lot, but on the issue of revolving doors in the Wales Office I stand with him 100%. Perhaps at another time we will discuss some of the other issues.
A third member of the Wales Office team has just been appointed: my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). She has in common with the other two members of the team the fact that she, too, has worn the uniform of the British Army, although I believe for rather longer than either I or the Secretary of State did, and in a full-time capacity. I thank her for her help.
As Minister, I look forward to working closely not only with the Secretary of State but with all Members of Parliament from all parties and, of course, Members of the Welsh Assembly from all parties.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) made a powerful contribution, as she always does, and channelled her inner Bonnie Tyler. She made a very good point: she achieved a change in the law, not just in Wales but in the rest of the United Kingdom as well, because people were willing to listen to what she had to say, and she was willing to work with members of other parties. That is something we must continue to do.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who will take over as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, for his comments. I am sure that he will do an outstanding job and continue the tradition of ensuring that members of that Committee are willing to travel the length and breadth of Wales to find out anything that may be of importance to that Committee’s inquiries.
Let me turn to the flooding that has devastated Wales. We heard about the issues from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden). I echo the thanks that all Members gave to the emergency services—to the police, the fire service and the rescue services, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Severn Area Rescue Association and others.
Various Members also mentioned perhaps forgotten heroes. Like a few other speakers, I pay tribute to local authority workers. I was privileged to be able to thank those who helped out recently in Monmouthshire at a depot, where they had worked 24 hours a day to fill thousands upon thousands of sandbags and get them out. I have to say that when I got a complaint from  one constituent that somebody’s bin had not been put back in the right place in the garden, I had to restrain myself from sending a rather strong message, given what workers in Monmouthshire and across Wales had been responsible for.
I also pay tribute to other forgotten heroes: the workers of Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water. The water treatment centre in Monmouth was inundated over that terrible weekend. As soon as it was safe to do so, Welsh Water went in there and took out all the pumps, dried them out, replaced them, and put in more electrical fittings. Again, they were working 24 hours a day, although in 12-hour shifts. At the same time, Monmouth and its  surrounding areas faced running out of water within 12 hours, so 40 tankers were sent in to make sure that water was still pumped into homes—ironically, it came from England—and there was bottled water ready. The chief executive of Welsh Water, Peter Perry, did an absolutely outstanding job. He was on the phone to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others at all hours of the day and night. He made himself available, and I absolutely pay absolute tribute to him and to Welsh Water—

Stephen Kinnock: That is the co-operative model.

David Davies: Sorry?

Kevin Brennan: It is mutualised.

David Davies: Indeed, and I will not query that decision at the moment. I remember that taking place 20 years ago in the Welsh Assembly, and if Members are asking me to praise a nationalised, mutual industry, I am very happy to do it in the case of Dŵr Cymru today. I am a pragmatist.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has obviously been meeting the various people involved, and we will continue to do that, but I should gently point out that the leader of Monmouthshire County Council made it clear to me that he did not want politicians going into the flooded areas during the emergency.

Kevin Brennan: The Minister makes the point that the Prime Minister would have got in the way if he had turned up; is that an implicit criticism of Prince Charles for doing exactly that?

David Davies: Far be it from me to criticise the royal family; that would be a bit above my station. I was simply saying that the leader of Monmouthshire Council made it clear to me that he did not want me or anyone else going into the flooded area while the floodwaters were still there.
Let me move on to other matters. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have been thinking very carefully about the importance of ensuring that when Wales leaves the European Union, we continue working with the Welsh Government, the local authorities and businesses, so that Wales maintains its position at the heart of a strengthened United Kingdom. We are looking forward to negotiating the cross-border Welsh Marches growth deal, and to developing schemes for improving cross-border infrastructure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke about the importance of good broadband, and compared Pandy Tudur rather unfavourably with the Pitcairn Islands. Some £200 million has been promised by the UK Government to ensure that areas across the United Kingdom that are not properly connected become so, and we recognise the importance of that. Rail connectivity was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Again, I absolutely recognise the general point that he made, but I will have to get back to him on the specific point.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister address the timetable issue?

David Davies: Yes, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on that point. On the general issue of rail services, as he will know, we are spending £1.4 billion   on rail infrastructure over the next control period. We could do even better for connectivity if we could persuade colleagues in the Welsh Government to support the M4 relief road, and to accept the borrowing that is being offered to them to build that much-needed road.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, who all had in common an attempt to see who could use the most Welsh in the Chamber. Dydw i ddim yn siwr pwy sydd wedi ennill y wobr. I will not push my luck. I was on the Welsh Affairs Committee when we changed the rules to allow Welsh to be used at all times. It was right that we should do that. We now allow Welsh to be used, of course, in the Welsh Grand Committee, and it is quite right that we should do that as well. There is more to be done in the Chamber and around the House of Commons. I would be perfectly amenable to supporting further changes and reforms to allow Welsh to be used even more widely in the House.

Wayne David: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the next Welsh Grand Committee will be held?

David Davies: I am told by the Secretary of State that I cannot at the moment, but I am sure that it will be coming soon.
I suspect that I may have left out some hon. Members. If I did, I apologise. I say to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) that like me, he remembered the referendum, but I was on the opposing side at the time. There may be those, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, who now oppose devolution in Wales, but I am certainly not one of them. I recognise that the people of Wales have spoken not once, but twice on this, and they have made their views very clear. We have a Welsh Assembly, and it has the support of the people of Wales. It would be utterly wrong for anyone, in my opinion, to try to undermine the Welsh Assembly. That is not something that I or the Secretary of State for Wales will do. I am pleased to put on record our support for the principle of having a Welsh Assembly, and of course we will do what we can to ensure that the Government of the Welsh Assembly change.
As we leave the European Union, we stand on the brink of a new chapter—a potentially glorious chapter—in the history of Wales. As we regain control in the United Kingdom of our laws, our borders and our taxpayers’ money, there will be enormous opportunities to ensure that Wales prospers and develops. I very much look forward to being a part of that. I wish everyone a very happy Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Sant. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Nigel Evans: Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

Crime (West Sandwell)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Shaun Bailey: A few weeks ago, I stood in this Chamber and stated very clearly that I would not allow the people of West Bromwich West to be abandoned again. That is why I am here today: to fight for them and keep our communities safe. I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that it is that sense of community—that coming together of people, and the genuine care and compassion we show each other—that makes all our communities  great. However, the great communities that make up my constituency are under attack.
My constituents are decent, hard-working and caring people, and one of the benefits of having such a great community is that we are blessed with some fantastic community groups, such as the WMA community fitness centre in Tipton, which works to keep young people off the streets and prevent them from falling into crime, through a variety of martial arts, fitness work and pastoral care.
However, the most recent figures, from December 2019, highlight the battle that we are facing in West Sandwell more widely. We have seen a sharp rise in anti-social behaviour; in burglary; in vehicle, violent and sexual crime; in drug-related crime; in bike thefts; and in muggings. With just under 100,000 people in my constituency, the 2019 figures are, quite frankly, shocking: 2,990 violent and sexual crimes, 1,089 vehicle-related crimes, over 1,000 cases of anti-social behaviour, 850 cases of burglary, and 790 cases of criminal damage and arson.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman mentioned burglary, but is he also seeing, as we are seeing in Warley, aggravated burglary, where people are smashing into homes even when residents are in, terrifying and intimidating them, and causing huge fear in the neighbourhood?

Shaun Bailey: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, having also seen that in my constituency casework. I am sure it is something he sees almost daily in his mailbag.
Since the Labour police and crime commissioner for the west midlands took office in August 2014, we have seen month-on-month increases in violent crime—we have seen violent crime rise by 175%. For example, in August 2014 there were 3,148 violent crimes reported in the west midlands area, and in December 2019 that figure had risen to over 8,500 incidents, in a single month. Those are astonishing and shocking figures, and they cannot be ignored.
Nobody—and I mean nobody—should feel unsafe in their home or when walking to the shops, or feel concern for their children walking to school, or have concerns about their car being vandalised at night, or question whether it is safe to leave their windows open while they sleep. However, that is exactly what I am hearing on the ground, and the statistics very much reflect those concerns. Those concerns are a daily occurrence for many constituents who just want to get on with their lives.
My constituents are coming to me, as their voice in Westminster, and pleading with me to do something about the rising levels of crime in West Bromwich West and west Sandwell. I have seen at first hand the pain and anguish that these criminals are bringing to an otherwise cohesive, close-knit, welcoming and warm community. This is not simply about reducing numbers on a spreadsheet or grabbing a headline; the consequences of the current situation are very real and damage the livelihoods of good and honest people.
I want to share a real-life example that one of my constituents has asked me to use today. Ellie lives in Wednesbury, in the north of my constituency. She moved to Wednesbury last May and is now nine months pregnant. She was the victim of a burglary at the end of last year, around seven months after she first moved in. The perpetrators broke into her partner’s van on 23 December, just two days before Christmas. They took over £1,000-worth of tools, and the damage to the van was so bad that it had to be written off. Ellie’s partner relies on the van and his tools for his livelihood; that is how he provides for his family.
Ellie has told me that she has experienced two other attempted break-ins since she moved to Wednesbury just last May, and her and her partner’s lives have had to revolve around checking the CCTV daily. I ask all Members to think about that for a second. Expecting parents should be thinking about baby names and decorating the baby’s room, deciding on the nappy changing rota and generally celebrating the new life that they will be welcoming into this world. Instead, Ellie and her partner are spending their time checking the CCTV system out of fear that somebody has been trying to break into their vehicle and their home. I will not allow this to go on. I am intervening today because I was sent here to fight for people like Ellie and her soon-to-be-born baby, whose voices have not been listened to for too long. As a result of the situation, tragically Ellie has told me that she does not feel that she can stay in Wednesbury once her baby is born, so she is moving away with her partner and their family.
If we want to revive communities such as Wednesbury, Tipton and Oldbury, we need to ensure that they are safe for people to live in so that families can settle there, feel safe there and want to contribute to our society. I know that this Government and the Minister are committed to tackling rising crime, wherever it rears its head. However, we need to remember that what we are talking about is not solely the responsibility of national Government. Shockingly, the response from our local Labour police and crime commissioner to these very real concerns has been to consider closing a further three police stations in west Sandwell—in Oldbury, a town that I share with the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), in Wednesbury, where Ellie lives, and in Tipton. How the conclusion was reached that that was the right decision, I am not entirely sure.
The response I have received when I have had a frank discussion about this issue is, “By closing the buildings we can put more officers on the street”. On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible proposition. However, it is certainly not an either/or, considering that the PCC has taken the decision to invest £33 million in the refurbishment of Lloyd House, the headquarters of West Midlands police. It is slightly baffling to me that the refurbishment of an office could be even a slightly more pressing  matter than the safety of residents or boots on the street. It simply is not good enough for my residents and my communities. This refurbishment is an unnecessary waste of vital resources that should be pushed to the frontline. I invite the police and crime commissioner to Tipton, one of the most vulnerable communities in our area, where the police station has been threatened with closure, to tell the people there why their police station should close but the headquarters can be refurbished.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shaun Bailey: I am afraid that I must make some progress.
I also ask the PCC to tell people in Wednesbury who have lost their desk service why an office refurbishment should be the priority. I thank my good friend Jay Singh-Sohal, the Conservative candidate for West Midlands police and crime commissioner, for his steadfast support and leadership in the campaign to keep Tipton police station open, as well as a review of provision in Wednesbury. Jay has proven that he is a strong friend of the communities in my constituency, and I look forward to working with him as we continue this fight.
I am fully aware that crime is changing, as is the way we react and deal with crimes.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shaun Bailey: I really do need to make some progress.
I have been impressed by the efforts of police forces across the country to focus on cyber-crime, recruiting special police officers to deal with cyber-crime and tackling the new ways in which crime has developed, particularly in the west midlands. But I am sure that what our constituents want to see is community-based policing.

John Spellar: More coppers.

Shaun Bailey: It is as if the right hon. Gentleman can read my mind. Community-based policing means boots on the ground, just as he says from a sedentary position, but it also means buildings and a real estate strategy, as well as fostering community engagement—another core point.
How we manage the roles of police officers in our communities also needs to change. Police officers tell me that they do not just want to be the last response and final line of defence. In fact, they want to reclaim the position that they feel they have lost, of being at the core and centre of the community. That means encouraging and allowing police officers to get themselves out there, whether by sitting in their local café, going around their local shop, carrying on going into our local schools or, yes, simply walking up and down the high street on the beat. We need to allow police officers the freedom to come out from behind the desk and to be out there in the community. I have been encouraged by conversations that I have had recently with people from a range of forces, a range of police and crime commissioners and a range of chief constables. With the adoption of new technologies, and innovative ways of thinking and working, we can get back to this grassroots policing.
This is also about continuing and building on the amazing network of neighbourhood and street watch schemes. I pay tribute to these groups in my constituency,  particularly the Tividale street watch group. I visited them two weeks ago and hope to be out on patrol with them soon. Those groups are stepping up and doing an amazing job by engaging with our award-winning neighbourhood policing teams in west Sandwell. It is fantastic to see the strides that they are making. But we need to ensure that the resource is there, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, they cannot be their own private police force. They should not have to be. These people are civilians—normal human beings. Why should they have to be acting like a private police force?
While my contribution today has focused more on the gritty and harsh reality of what my communities face on a day-to-day basis, I am optimistic about the future. I know that we can solve the issues I have highlighted—because, quite frankly, we have to. The 20,000 new recruits that we will see across the country are a welcome and vital addition to our community. The Government’s wider commitment to protecting our officers on the beat—

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shaun Bailey: Yes, as the right hon. Gentleman has been so persistent.

John Spellar: Is it not true that that we have lost well over 2,000 officers and will get just over 1,000 back, whereas Surrey is getting an increase on its baseline? Were not the cuts by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Home Secretary absolutely devastating in the west midlands?

Shaun Bailey: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but let us look at the reasons why those cuts were made. Quite frankly, it is all summed up by the individual he is backing to be the Mayor of the west midlands, who left the note to say there was no money left. I assure this House that we will be working to ensure that he does not do to the west midlands what he did to this country.
On the 20,000 new recruits, I have three asks for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I want her to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that they will use their influence to encourage PCCs to deploy those extra police officers in the areas that need them. I am sure we can all agree across this House that we need to be maximising where they are deployed. Although that is a decision for our local police forces, hopefully the Government can intervene on that. Secondly, I hope that she will reaffirm the Government’s commitment to community-based policing whereby we work with all our stakeholders to ensure that police are once again embedded at the heart of our communities. Finally, I hope that she will meet me and other stakeholders in west Sandwell to discuss how we can ensure that police forces have the tools and support they need to operate and to keep our communities safe.
As I said in my maiden speech, I was brought up to believe that we have a duty to speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves, and I wanted to ensure that Ellie, her unborn baby and the rest of my constituents were heard loud and clear by this Government. Our community is vulnerable. I hope that my constituents will see that I am keeping my promise to them.

Victoria Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on securing this important debate and speaking with such passion about the impact of crime in his constituency. He set out very clearly the promise he made to his constituents on his election. I, for one, think he is very much delivering on that promise.
My hon. Friend eloquently set out the corrosive and devastating impact of crime. People have the right to feel safe when they visit their local high street, walk home, or go to sleep at night.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that keeping our streets safe is an absolute priority for this Government. We have taken swift action to tackle crime on multiple fronts, with clear priorities of addressing serious violence, homicide and neighbourhood crime. We are also investing heavily in policing, enabling the biggest increase in police funding in a decade and the largest recruitment drive in many more. The Prime Minister promised that, and like my hon. Friend, he is delivering on his promise.
While there is no shortcut to solving crime, this people’s Government have the commitment and resolve to see this through. We will maintain a relentless focus on cutting crime and addressing its root causes. We will see extra police officers on the streets and support law enforcement to deliver innovative approaches that keep them a step ahead of these fast-evolving criminal groups. We must protect the most vulnerable, invest in safeguarding and support those at greatest risk of becoming victims or offenders.

John Spellar: Can the Minister tell us when those police will be on the streets of the west midlands and how many there will be?

Victoria Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is surpassing himself today—I am just about to move on to that, because it was the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. We have pledged to recruit an additional 20,000 officers, which we believe sends a clear message that we are committed to giving police the resources they need to tackle the scourge of crime. West Midlands police will receive up to £620.8 million in funding in 2020-21—an increase of up to £49.6 million on the previous year. To put that in context, it is an increase of 8.7%, which is the third highest in the country. This year alone, West Midlands police will benefit from 366 more police officers, but we make it clear that this is the first tranche in a three-year programme.
Forces have been given a generous funding settlement in order to provide for the associated costs alongside new officers, such as additional cars, estate equipment and uniforms, and give them what they need to tackle crime. How and where in each force those officers are deployed is a decision to be made by the local chief constable, but I note my hon. Friend’s encouragement for central Government to get involved. I suspect that he will be a very good advocate for his constituency, to ensure that it sees the benefit of those new officers and the extra funding. Fundamentally, this is about tackling crime. The uplift programme provides the opportunity  to ensure that we have the officers that policing needs to respond to the increase in demand and to take a proactive response to tackling and preventing crime.
My hon. Friend asked about community and neighbourhood policing. Local policing fulfils two essential functions: responding to calls for service and preventing crime and harm. It is also the key vehicle for building legitimacy through community engagement and public confidence. The College of Policing published guidelines on modernising neighbourhood policing in March 2018. The Home Office contributed to the guidelines, which cover a variety of topics, including engaging communities, solving problems, targeting activity and promoting the right culture.
That is all good work, but we want to build on it, because two of the crime types that are at the heart of neighbourhood policing are, sadly, acquisitive crime and vehicle crime. The Government recognise the distress and disruption that acquisitive crimes can cause. Indeed, my hon. Friend set out clearly the experiences of his constituent Ellie and her partner, and the longer-term consequences for the family’s livelihood and wellbeing. Residential burglary is a particularly invasive crime that can have a lasting impact on its victims, and vehicle theft can also have a real impact, particularly on those who rely on their vans, scooters and other vehicles to earn a living.
We are committed to driving down those crimes and making our communities safer. One way in which we will achieve that is through our £25 million safer streets fund, which will support the communities who are disproportionately affected by acquisitive crime to implement crime-prevention initiatives such as improved street lighting and home security. The principle behind the fund is that policing cannot deliver this on their own. We need to engage neighbourhoods in the package of measures to have success in local areas. We are encouraging bids to the fund not only to be developed in partnership with local communities but to include community-focused elements—for example, building support and engagement in the proposed interventions, or direct funding for community groups to undertake prevention activities themselves.
We have made it clear that, although police and crime commissioners are the lead bidders, they are encouraged to work in partnership with a wide range of local organisations to ensure that local priorities are addressed and local communities are engaged. The application process for the fund is currently open, and I would encourage my hon. Friend to work with the police and crime commissioner, his local police force and community groups to develop and submit a bid or bids to the fund before its closing date of 20 March.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of serious violence. Again, we understand and recognise the terrible impact that serious violence has on local neighbourhoods and  communities. Preventing and tackling serious violence is a matter for law enforcement—of course it is—but we also need to find long-term solutions to the problem and to tackle the root causes. We recognise the importance of effective partnership working across the wide range of professions that must work together to bear down on this problem.
To support this, we are introducing the serious violence Bill, which will create a new duty on a range of specified agencies—the police, local government, youth offending, health and probation—to work collaboratively, share data and information, and put in place plans to prevent and reduce serious violence within their local communities.
We invested £100 million in 2019-20, through the serious violence fund, for the 18 police force areas most affected by serious violence. Of this, £7.62 million was allocated to the West Midlands to pay for a surge in police operational activity. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary announced a further just under £5 million for the West Midlands, as a provisional allocation in an overall announcement of £41.5 million for police surge funding in the year 2020-21. West Midlands will provisionally be allocated this as one of the 18 force areas worst affected by serious violence.
A further £3.37 million has been invested in developing the West Midlands violence reduction unit. On 29 December 2019, the Home Secretary announced a further £35 million to continue funding these units. The West Midlands VRU has been allocated another £3.37 million for 2020-21 to continue to tackle the root causes of serious violence. Indeed, when I joined officers out and about in Birmingham a few months ago, I was very pleased to meet some of the people setting up that important unit in my hon. Friend’s local constabulary area.
My hon. Friend asked me the very difficult question—question 3—of whether I would meet him and his constituents in his constituency, and I would be delighted to do so. I would be delighted to visit him in his constituency so that I can see for myself the issues that he and his constituents are facing. I thank him very much for the opportunity to listen to and discuss the particular issues facing his constituency. I will of course continue to reflect on them in considering the Government’s approach in the future. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to raise these issues with continued passion and determination.
Finally, I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent Ellie and her partner all the very best with the happy arrival, I hope, of their cherished baby.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.